You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Their Children's Names Will NEVER be on the VaxXed Bus - HEALTHY & UNVACCINATED!
I don't believe vaccines are by definition all bad. And I am sure they can be harmful with its side-effects. Cause things like autism and even death. However, if we all were to stop using (certain) vaccines it could cause some diseases to spread quickly. If a few don't get vaccinated they get protected by others that have. So it might be necessary. Doesn't mean the negative sides need to be exposed more, I totally agree with you on that. I know how the pharma industry works and it's a nasty business..
Maybe, but vaccine immunity is weak at best compared to natural immunity, and it has never been maintained as such to provide immunity because the group is vaccinated rather poorly, but what's interesting about vaccines is that they have never been demonstrated efficacious, the background rate that disease was decreasing at before vaccination is faster than what vaccinations account for after it had been introduced, and it's not hard to see from those graphs that vaccination stalled or stopped complete immunity because of other factors that were already decreasing the incidence rates and the mortality rates for disease before vaccinations made it one grueling battle of numerous vaccination injuries and crimes, such as the SV40 cancer causing virus in Polio that was knowingly put there and spread to the people for the next decades, in promise that they will eradicate the disease, which haven't materialized at all. If you know how the pharma (p is silent) works and it's nasty business yet you believe that while they are nasty business they are also doing good somehow, possibly radiation for cancer, or chemotherapy, or vaccines, who are "preventiely" keeping us from being disease ridden.
thank-you @baah !
As I am not a scientist I can't confirm how effective vaccines are. All I can do is take the assumption that the majority of scientists that say it works, are correct. That said, there still is a lot of corruption at hand by the shareholders, that rather surpress things coming out being a thread to their profits and credibility of the company. Yes, I do believe most scientists are honest, just not always the ones sponsoring them.
If you think that most scientists are honest or good, you haven't tried to explain vaccines and their history, and things such as the SV40 virus, or the fact that they have no safety studies done on vaccinations or pretty much anything else that comes from the pharmaceutical co's, or opened up a book about viruses or vaccines and asked yourself "how and why" to be baffled that it's all based on assumption, and suppositions, down to the methods for how these things work, one myth supporting another, and it's called medical science, honest medical science where they say "we suppose it works like this" and don't simply affirm "it works like this" without any proof of why and how they derived that conclusion.
If you tried to explain those things in the narrative of most scientists are honest, it just the people that fund their honesty that aren't honest it would be one massive contradiction and the conflict of interest would be evident: why would honest people be sponsored by dishonest ones, why would dishonest people sponsor honest people?
The only reason dishonest people would sponsor honest people is to cover their dishonesty and to sell themselves as credible, either way, the honest people in the middle, if they know this aren't honest, and if they don't aren't smart enough to figure it out, hardly worth the salt of critical thinkers.
Either they want to make money, first and foremost, or they want to heal and help, because if the secondary objective interferes with the primary only one wins.
My point is. Scientists often get financed by the corporations promoting something. Seeing as how a big part of the pharma industry is profit driven, it seems logical to me to assume they would sponsor positive research for them to sell the product. If they were to put money in research like for example a possible cause of autism by vaccines, it wouldn't do them much good. So scientist won't have the chance to do research into these specific fields, cause there is no funds going into its research.
If it's logical that these people are selling a product FIRST and FOREMOST, why is it logical to believe that they have the best intentions or good intention, or are honest?
There are plenty of studies done on autism and vaccines, it doesn't take much to realize that, the point isn't that the industry doesn't found studies into the safety of their products, but that the industry doesn't magically gain credibility or trust because they have paid scientists to create a product, after their long history of fraud and criminal acts.
It doesn't require you to be a scientist only a concerned individual to confirm these things, such as how vaccines work, and why, if they do.
The same for corruption, if you are concerned you would know how and what corruption there was evidence of, and would not assume that the scientist are good because shareholders are bad.
I'm glad you agree that the information on all sides needs to be spoken about and people need to be able to make an informed decision.
For example, I went through measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox myself as a child, as did all the other children, and I never heard of anyone having any problems with them. So I'm not a bit scared of the idea of my children having those normal childhood illnesses. But fear sells vaccines, so they pretend that measles is so deadly and horrible, in order to get you to buy their vaccines.
Thank-you for your comment.
Fear has always been one of the greatest tools to sell something to the public. Besides, It's always best to look things from both sides, though too less people do so..
Beware of subjects that seem to have only two sides. The false dilemma is one of the most overused tools for the manipulation of the people. When I'm presented with two options the first thing I do is look for the possibilities that are not included.
There are superior technologies that are skipped over in favor of the large moneyed interests that are integral to the corruption of regulatory capture.
That I agree 100% on
Other countries do this differently. There are homeopathic vaccines (India) and Singapore uses different companies, different preparations, and has a MUCH smaller list of required vaccines. IN-ter-est-ing, huh?
Kin-da ^^