Vaccine contaminants and safety

Latest News Forums Discussion Forum Vaccine contaminants and safety

Viewing 40 posts - 401 through 440 (of 514 total)
  • Author
  • #54831 Reply

    Why is the lie that anti tetanus vaccines are laced with hCG still being discussed in these pages? This is something from 1994 when it caused a lot of damage by decreasing the uptake of anti-tetanus vaccine. False methodology was used to detect hCG in vaccines by using pregnancy test assays to look for hCG in vaccines, a test usually designed to detect the hCG which is raised in pregnancy, in serum or urine. Vaccines contain other agents which can interfere with assays and if you wish to detect hCG in vaccines you will need other tests. This has been proven way back in 1995 and is very clearly explained in this article.

    Now if this misinformation continues to be made in this forum without a proper analysis why anyone who refutes this makes in a logical way, then I think that it amounts to willful misinformation and I invite the moderators to examine this as it seems that now this thread is attracting more anti-vaxxers, something that I believe is not very desirable, although it is not up to me to decide.
    So a story from 1994 is still being repeated and used as evidence about the malevolent intentions of the WHO because of some faulty accusations. Also it is surprising, given how this is still used by anti-vaxxers that the only argument the use to support their claims is an assay carried out by the Catholic test, that was shown to use faulty techniques, and without any evidence that there is decreased fertility in this population of women that were targeted. Such evidence, if it exists, should be easy to produce if carried out properly. In the fertility literature there is no data to support this and the claims have not been renewed since 1995. Are we living in a time warp.
    Paul put up or shut up.

    #54832 Reply

    “…..assay carried out by the Catholic test, that was shown to use faulty techniques….”

    Ooops. Meant to read assay commissioned by the Catholic church and carried out by what was shown to be a faulty technique.

    But Catholic test sounds a good summation!

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by modbot.
    #54840 Reply

    SA, have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig, 1974?

    I think that this problem cannot be solved down here among the details, because Paul and others like him do not trust the process of scientific scrutiny among the scientific community in the scientific literature. That very process is distrusted, and that’s largely because it is almost completely omitted by the corporate media, making it easy to believe that there is nothing there but the rule of authority, as in almost every other organisation of people.

    Suppression will merely entrench the problem. In this new era of peer-to-peer communication, in which everyone is a publisher and the corporate gatekeepers can be bypassed, we need to develop a new model by which claims can be checked. Making the matter worse, we have to develop our new bonds of trust in the midst of an information battlefield, upon which even certain words and phrases have become booby-trapped.

    Like Persig, I propose an expedition away from this battlefield to the clearer air of the high country of the mind. It is the productive, fertile lowlands and foothills that are being fought over, and destroyed in the process. But the solutions lie not in science, but in philosophy. We need to climb, to a consideration of epistemology and language.

    It will be cold and the air will be thin, but the view will be good, and we would all be stronger for it by the time we descend. Will you join me?

    #54846 Reply

    I am not arguing for censorship merely for the observation of some rules of logic when debating. There is an obvious lack of logic in this discussion when we find ourselves debating illogical false beliefs with logic. Why do we do it? I suppose because we are under the mistaken belief that truth will shine out. But to see people who purport to be anti imperialist align in argument with people like Trump in their systems of belief, is somewhat shocking.
    I have not read Pirsig. What do you propose by way of philosophy?

    #54849 Reply

    SA – “But to see people who purport to be anti imperialist align in argument with people like Trump in their systems of belief, is somewhat shocking.”

    Yes. I saw this coming when Trump endorsed various conspiracy theories to further his presidential campaign, though I did not expect it to get as bad as it has. Then again, I wasn’t expecting covid-19; probably one of the worst things that could have befallen the people of the US with a conspiracy theorist as president.

    Then again again, Trump has not initiated any military wars. I expect the US will not initiate military war upon China; too much Western manufacturing is outsourced to China for that; indeed, there is a Pentagon report that the US could not sustain all-out war against China for more than a month because the US military is dependent upon Chinese manufacturing. There will be further escalation in trade and propaganda warfare, economic sanctions etc., and probably some skirmishes in the ocean around China, and islands and shipping routes that China lays claim to. All pointless competition where cooperation is desperately needed.

    I don’t really know any philosophy, but we have to ascend above science into the realms of how we reason and decide. See my comment to Paul at the bottom of the previous page. We have to ascend above the realm in which ideas have effects upon people’s lives, because these effects are the source of the conflict, the incentive for protecting the ideas.

    I strongly recommend Zen and the Art. Goldacre makes a couple of oblique references to it in Bad Science, though you wouldn’t notice unless you’d read it.

    #54851 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ SA
    If I responded to you in like manner, my comment would be wiped.
    You are not intimidating or dominating me.

    #54852 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark
    I do not want to get bogged down in semantics. I disagree fundamentally with many government activities (principally wars and policies against the working class), and with pprobably most corporate activities and agendas.
    If the government or the UN or WHO come up with something I disagree with, and I state it, odds are it is put down as a ‘conspiracy theoory’. The number of high government officials, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Popes (yes, plural) and other dogs bodies who are on record welcoming, and claiming the time is right, for a ‘New World Order’ is staggering, yet some still dismiss the idea as a ‘conspiracy theory’. I truly wish that was all it is, but I know better.

    #54853 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Social Proximity June 8, 2020 at 15:00
    Thanks. It does seem at times I’m ploughing a lonely furrow.

    #54854 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    Many if not most scientists and doctors who go against the predominant ‘narrative’ get demonised and ‘discredited’ by the MSM and Establishment medical journals. I doubt if there is any branch of the Establishment as jealous of it’s inerrancy as Doctors, except perhaps the Papacy.
    The 87-year-old doctor who invented the rubella vaccine now working to fight the coronavirus‘.
    Wow, the ‘Godfather of Vaccines’, associated with four major vaccine manufacturers, working on Covid – 19. Sound great? Well, lets take a look at Plotkin:
    Dr. Stanley “Human-in-Form” Plotkin, re: experiments on orphans/mentally retarded/prisoners‘.
    Has he been demonised by the MSM? Or ‘discredited’? Has any of that appeared in the MSM? No, of course not. That kind of information isn’t in the public interest, is it?
    Here’s some more on Plotkin (the first video doesn’t play, but I believe it is the same one as I linked above): ‘Dr. Plotkin Admits Fetal Cells Under Oath & Human DNA Fragments in Vaccines
    ‘…The US government has known about the dangers of human DNA from aborted fetal cell-lines since at least 2005. They set guidelines which are supposed to keep the DNA at a specific limit, which they hypothesize won’t cause cancer.
    With no safety studies they regulated the amount of human DNA to no greater than 10ng. Unfortunately, Dr. Deisher’s team found the fetal DNA levels ranged from 142ng – 2000ng per dose, way beyond the guesstimated “safe” level. Dr Deisher’s work is available on the Academic Journals website…’

    #54856 Reply

    “If I responded to you in like manner, my comment would be wiped.”

    Then maybe you should try to have a bit of humility and reflect why your comments are wiped and try to formulate a decent argument in answer.
    Or is it that the mods are also blinded and just demonise those who want to expose the luciferian lizzards?

    #54861 Reply

    Is any vaccination evil or useless? How many children’s lives have been saved by vaccines? Do you know? Do you and your circle of antivaxxers ever ask these questions? Do you care? How have some diseases like smallpox and polio (almost) been eradicated from the world, diseases that have killed many and have caused a lot of chronic disabilities and chronic health problems. How many cases of rubella, tetanus and diphtheria been prevented with benefits to children? How many cases of these diseases are now almost completely absent from the developed world and how many are still ravaging the third world?
    Have you personally seen any child with any of these diseases? Have you experienced as an observer the effects these diseases have on children?
    Some suspicion of how results are achieved is always important and some scepticism about extra profit that pharma makes out of these is important. But let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you genuinely want to save children, as you say you do, you have to address these questions and address them genuinely and seek the truth for yourself, otherwise living in an antivaxxer echo chamber is just the flip image of living in a corporate led utopia where everything is rosy.

    #54865 Reply

    Paul, you’re ignoring me, you’re ignoring SA, and you’ve ignored Dr Edd. You’re not debating, you’re treating your equals as inferiors by not engaging. You’re setting the agenda by repeatedly changing the subject. I object, at a personal level. I find these methods you are using abusive. Yes, abusive. You are not deploying insults, but your methods assume that my understanding is inferior to your own, and by refusing to engage you deny me any chance to change that, you deny me the chance of gaining your respect and thus being taken seriously. I object.

    #54866 Reply

    Worse than that. Paul is using this forum for his purposes to spread antivaxxer propaganda. Answering genuine questions is not part of his plan.

    #54867 Reply

    SA, yes, but Paul believes that he’s saving lives by exposing truth, as do you and I. That is why I propose ascending to the higher realms of thought, because there we will find ourselves in agreement. If we can work things out there, we can then descend again into the practicalities of the foothills and plains, but hopefully no longer be in conflict.

    Conspiracy theory is valid theory, indeed essential in a world rife with competition, collusion and deception. Without it we would all be dupes. But like all human theories its range of applicability is limited, and on its own it produces meaningless, untestable conclusions. Another example is the scientific method; it is excellent for investigating physical phenomena, but entirely useless for finding any meaning in life, and only of peripheral value in examinations of ethics and morality. Even within scientific theory we find partial theories incompatible with each other but mutually indispensable nonetheless, each with their own ranges of applicability, yet those ranges overlap considerably eg. the deterministic theory of general relativity, and the indeterministic quantum theory.

    #54868 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    You have to balance the ‘benefits’ (some real, some not) against the ‘harm’ (some admitted, many not).
    Did a Military Experimental Vaccine in 1918 Kill 50-100 Million People Blamed as “Spanish Flu”?
    At the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th, many major cities had deplorable sanitation and water supplies; these began to be seriously tackled at around the time vaccines were being rolled out for many diseases (though smallpox vaccine was invented at at the end of the 18th Century); the vaccine suppliers claimed the great advances in health were down to them, rather than a natural response to proper sewage control and clean drinking water.
    If, as appears to be the case, a vaccine ‘failure’ caused 50 -100 million deaths (and that’s just one, though likely the biggest to date, vaccine ‘failure’) then they would have to ‘save’ a heck of a lot of lives to make the benefit/harm ratio anything like acceptable.
    Scientists learn history of Spanish Flu at Fort Riley‘.
    Notice they don’t say a word about ‘dodgy vaccines’; ‘…Over lunch at Demon Dining Facility, Smith presented the history of the Spanish Flu at Fort Riley, as well as background on the installation and living conditions of Soldiers at that time. With a smirk, Smith told the scientists that patient zero was an Army cook named Albert Gitchell.
    They thought it mutated from pigs and then infected some Soldiers, some draftees, from Pascal County, Kansas, and they came here to train at Fort Riley and then the first recorded flu case here was a cook of all people,” he said…’.
    Mustn’t let the cat out of the bag, even 100 years later. The narrative must be adhered to.

    #54869 Reply

    Epistemology: Definition & Examples

    Epistemology is a study of knowledge that requires much attention. Because human beings rely on their thought processes, it’s helpful to understand how they work. This lesson will go over the three factors that contribute to knowledge acquisition.
    Defining Epistemology

    Epistemology is the study of knowledge acquisition. It involves an awareness of certain aspects of reality, and it seeks to discover what is known and how it is known. Considered as a branch of philosophy, epistemology addresses cognitive sciences, cultural studies and the history of science. Moreover, epistemology explains why our minds relate to reality and how these relationships are either valid or invalid. It is needed in order to distinguish between the truth and falsehood as we obtain knowledge from the world around us.

    Epistemology encompasses the construction of concepts, the nature of conditions and the validity of the senses. Because the study of epistemology enables us to think about the way we think, it is a useful method for evaluating the world around us. Accordingly, without epistemology, human beings would have no reason to believe in their thoughts and actions. Teachers would have no reason to give tests or assign class work because there would be no difference between truth and error. We need epistemology in order to accept reality and live our lives in successful pursuit of truth.

    One of the major questions that we ask is: where does knowledge come from? Many philosophers have supposed that knowledge comes from reason. Thus, humans have the ability to reason, and, therefore, they have the power to know. Conversely, other philosophers have contended that humans only become knowledgeable when they experience life situations, such as watching a movie or playing an instrument. These philosophers insist that man can only learn when he experiences life through his own senses. Further, there is a theologically-driven concept of knowledge, which suggests that knowledge is a God-given condition. This suggestion pertains to divine revelation and tends to blur the line between belief and knowledge, since there are many different religions.

    Examples of Epistemology

    There are three main examples or conditions of epistemology: truth, belief and justification….

    #54870 Reply

    Paul, please stop ignoring me; refusing to engage is a type of passive aggression. There is no further point in attempting to discuss vaccines. We need to discuss ways of knowing.

    #54871 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark June 10, 2020 at 13:28
    I am not interested in a philosophy course, I am here interested in showing the flaws in the vaccine argument, and exposing that Big Pharma are a pack of vile crooks. Not just little venial sinners, but King-sized mortal sinners, to take a religious stance.
    ‘…There is no further point in attempting to discuss vaccines…’
    On the contrary, that is the main point of my efforts here. If you are not willing to discuss vaccines, then so be it. I certainly am not interested in following someone else’s ideas about how I should think. You believe vaccines are good; I am extremely skeptical, and know that they can, at least on occasion, be extremely bad.
    I post examples, that I hope are food for thought. You try to tell me how to think – thanks, but no thanks.

    #54872 Reply

    I have not told you how to think. I wish to discus how we all think. To omit that is to omit calibration of the mind; presumption of one’s own pre-existing perfection.

    “You believe vaccines are good”

    It seems that you are telling me WHAT I think. This is merely a belief you hold.

    “I am extremely skeptical”

    I have seen you display no scepticism whatsoever; from my viewpoint, sceptical thought seems completely absent from your thought processes. Rather, you have chosen a conclusion, and you promote it, by any means you think might be effective, ie. your communication seems best characterised as propaganda.

    #54873 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    Two of the premier medical journals in the world ‘Rock the boat’ (by blowing the whistle), and at the same time kow-tow to Big Pharma pressure:
    Editors of The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine: Pharmaceutical Companies are so Financially Powerful They Pressure us to Accept Papers‘.
    ‘…In a videotaped interview on May 24, 2020, Dr. Douste-Blazy provided insight into how a series of negative hydroxychloroquine studies got published in prestigious medical journals.
    He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies.
    He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science…’
    ‘…Surgisphere, the company that provided the database for studies published by two of the world’s leading medical journals – The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine – based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored the hydroxychloroquine studies.

    “Surgisphere’s employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist. Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess… until Monday, the “get in touch” link on Surgisphere’s homepage redirected to a WordPress template for a cryptocurrency website, raising questions about how hospitals could easily contact the company to join its database.”..’

    ‘…The website, Science Defies Politics exposes numerous scientifically invalid studies that were essentially “hit jobs” against the use of hydroxychloroquine.
    WHY are very powerful corporate-government stakeholders so intent on killing a drug with a 70 year track record? Because the drug works against the pandemic; it is readily available, and costs very little. Therefore, it poses a financial threat to both pharma companies and their partners in government and academia, those who are intent on profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
    As uncovered by Science Defies Politics: 16 of the panel members selected by NIH to formulate the official COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines – including two of the three co-chairs – were paid by Gilead. They issued guidelines that raised fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the use of HCQ combined with AZ, while raising no fear, doubt, or uncertainty about using Gilead’s unproven, unapproved, drug remdesivir; a drug that has shown mediocre performance in clinical trials. Seven of the NIH panelists failed to disclose their financial ties to Gilead. They are listed here.
    The medical scientific literature is infested with financially motivated, shoddy, studies aimed at promoting products and, when a life-saving, non-patentable product, proves effective, scientists are hired to author study reports that are designed to tarnish scientists’ reputations, and to proclaim findings that refute legitimate findings. In this case, studies designed to “debunk” the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19…’

    So Big Pharma and their cronies are trying to squash the use of a cheap drug that in combination with other cheap drugs and supplements (zinc) can have a dramatic effect on Covid 19 in many cases.
    That should really infuriate anyone who cares about the victims, but some of you will ignore that and try to rubbish my attempts to put the record straight, and expose criminal malfeasance by governments and Big Pharma, and their MSM propagandists.

    #54878 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark
    ‘…presumption of one’s own pre-existing perfection…’
    Are you serious?

    ‘– “You believe vaccines are good”
    It seems that you are telling me WHAT I think. This is merely a belief you hold.

    Is it merely a belief I hold? You certainly give the impression that you believe vaccines are good. Am I mistaken in believing you believe vaccines are good?
    If I am right, why bother to bring it up in the first place?

    I don’t want this thread to become nothing but a squabbling match, and for it to go the way of a previous thread, so I will keep ignoring Red Herring or hostile comments.

    #54879 Reply

    “… but some of you will ignore that and try to rubbish my attempts to put the record straight”

    You rubbish your own attempts by repeatedly putting the record crooked. On this occasion you cite “the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine”, but were the very same editors to tell you that Wakefield is a fraud and excellent evidence proves that MMR does not cause autism, you will simply turn against then, dismissing them as “pawns of big pharma”.

    You claim “skepticism” yet you have claimed to derive your knowledge from your “crystal ball”, and anyone applying true scepticism to your claims you dismiss as “dupes of big pahrma and the MSM”. Your sense of self-superiority is unmistakeable; correct it!

    #54880 Reply

    ‘…presumption of one’s own pre-existing perfection…’

    Yes I am serious, though I should have written ‘infallibility’ rather than ‘perfection’.

    “Am I mistaken in believing you believe vaccines are good?”

    Yes. The statement is simplistic; reality is a bit more complicated than that. There is an entire territory between “vaccines are good” and “vaccines are bad”. The use of any particular vaccine is appropriate or inappropriate. For example administering the oral polio vaccine in Europe and the US would be bad. Administering it where natural polio is endemic is good. However, the vaccine programme itself reduces incidence of natural polio, so there comes a time where natural polio prevented by the oral vaccine gets outweighed by the polio caused by the vaccine.

    Taking the above facts and misrepresenting them to spread fear of vaccination is bad, and repetition of such misinformation is also bad.

    #54883 Reply

    Here we go, Paul fashion chasing new subjects when he has not bothered to answer my posts about vaccines. Stick to one subject at a time Paul.

    #54884 Reply

    You will keep ignoring comments that come to the heart of the matter. Have we finished discussing the catholic church and its expertise in vaccines then?

    #54891 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    I refuse to dialogue with someone who threatens me with the ‘Mods’every five minutes.
    Go and try to intimidate someone else.

    #54894 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark
    ‘…However, the vaccine program itself reduces incidence of natural polio, so there comes a time where natural polio prevented by the oral vaccine gets outweighed by the polio caused by the vaccine…’
    Syria hadn’t had any polio cases for a long time – then Western agencies saw fit to bring in oral polio vaccines – and voila – Syrian refugee kids started coming down with crippling polio from the vaccines. Was this deliberate? Well, the West also arranged for it’s mercenary headchoppers to flood into Syria, and they already murdered many hundreds of children, so it is not a stretch to suspect it was just another attempt to cause harm to Syria’s citizens.
    Sure, I mentioned the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine. But it was because they not only whistleblew how they were being manipulated by Big Pharma, but they also collaborated with them, printing their BS articles which were obviously just that. But maybe you didn’t read the article. Plenty of good scientific links.

    #54896 Reply

    Paul, look, you may as well stop posting this tirade of details amounting to a campaign against vaccines, because I can’t be bothered to read them. I have read so much of this stuff you have posted, over the course of years, on dozens of diverse subjects, and you are wrong far more often than you are right, and you nearly always exaggerate, and/or extrapolate unreasonably. Reading your stuff wastes my time far more often than not.

    And you should read my comments more thoroughly including the ones to other participants, in this case SA; my position is nothing like what you assume it to be. Look at what I wrote to SA earlier:

    “Conspiracy theory is valid theory, indeed essential in a world rife with competition, collusion and deception. Without it we would all be dupes…”

    Had you even noticed that I’d read that? Or had you merely scanned some of my writing, concluded that you hadn’t converted me yet, and so bulldozed on in to post yet another cherry-picked and probably exaggerated and over-interpreted example, pursuing a More of Doctrine all of your own?

    “Perm Sec: He will be guilty. Whether he is guilty is irrelevant, he will be found guilty. This is where we use “more of”.
    – Minister: “More of”?
    – Perm Sec: Yes, “More of”. It’s not an official legal term, but all the lawyers know it as the oldest trick in the prosecutor’s book.
    – Minister: What do you mean, Permanent Secretary?
    – Perm Sec: Well look, we have the canoodling episode, the kiss in the office and a couple of suggestive remarks about sexy clothes.
    – Minister: The sexy remarks are hardly illegal, are they?
    – Perm Sec: Good God, Minister, what century are you in? (Canned Laughter). Sexual harassment, Minister. Kiss someone at the office party and tell someone else their figure looks good in that blouse, and you have established a pattern of behaviour. “More of” you see, Minister. The “more of” this stuff you throw, the better chance some of it will stick.”

    The crap they threw at Salmond, you throw exactly the same type of crap at vaccines, doctors and scientists. But what’s sauce for the goose…

    You simply pay no attention to your debating partners. It seems to me disrespectful, as if you think you couldn’t possibly learn anything from such dupes of the MSM. It is infuriating.

    #54898 Reply

    But some people can also be duped by the hoaxter antivaxxers.
    Paul. By refusing to answer me you admit you lost the argument. The mods can only be a threat to you because whenever you try to answer your comments get deleted. I wonder why?

    #54899 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark
    ‘– “Conspiracy theory is valid theory, indeed essential in a world rife with competition, collusion and deception. Without it we would all be dupes…”
    No, I had not read that, but what I have seen is not just with me, but with many, you calling their comments out as ‘conspiracy theory’.
    We might meet up on a Demo some day.

    #54900 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    Their animal trials failed, but they still roll out their new recombinant vaccine:
    ‘…Oxford’s ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (“chimpanzee adenovirus Oxford 1” novel coronavirus-19) recombinant vaccine is made from a genetically modified adenovirus that infects chimpanzees used as a viral vector into which the COVID-19 genome is inserted so the cells of the human body express the new coronavirus’s Spike Protein (S) and induce antibodies that are supposed to prevent infection.2Some researchers have noted that, “Viral vector-based vaccines require assessment of efficacy and safety, including immunogenicity, genetic stability, ability to evade pre-existing immunity, replication deficiency or attenuation, and genotoxicity.”3 Others have emphasized that the selection of an appropriate viral vector for a new vaccine depends upon “a thorough knowledge of the infectious agent for which the viral-vectored vaccine is being developed.”4
    There are gaps in scientific knowledge about the origin of the new coronavirus and the biological mechanisms involved in the way it infects and causes disease in humans but, like most COVID-19 vaccines being fast tracked to licensure, the vaccine being created by Oxford/AstraZeneca is compressing clinical trials testing into months rather than years.

    Reminds me of John Gummer:
    Gummer unrepentant on feeding daughter a hamburger‘.
    Would any readers on here offer their children up as guinea pigs for a completely new type of GMO recombinant vaccine?

    #54902 Reply

    Yes, conspiracy theory is a recognisable mode of thought. I’m thinking that it is necessary to a social species that routinely practices lying and collusion, but that on its own and applied unevenly it produces nonsensical, paranoid results.

    Paul, you don’t employ conspiracy theory as a mode of thought when you assess Wakefield’s claims, for instance. You only apply it to the opposite side. It seems that to anything you regard as “official” you apply extreme suspicion, but anything you regard as “alternative” you just accept without scepticism. Maybe that’s not what you do, but that’s certainly how it looks to me.

    Conspiracy theory as a mode of thought is necessary but far from sufficient. People are motivated by material self-interest, and they frequently collude to that end as well, so we need suspicion as a defence. But there isn’t just one big conspiracy controlling everything, with everyone else angels fighting it and being demonised by it.

    Take Wakefield as an example. Remember what his press conference was really for. He didn’t argue against vaccines. He argued against one specific vaccine, MMR, and he argued for three separate vaccines instead. He was absolutely lauded in the corporate media, yet you always claim that’s a red flag – but since you’ve already reached your conclusion, you discount it on this occasion. Lorraine Fraser had a dozen articles about him including an exclusive interview in the Telegraph describing him as “a champion of parents who feel their fears have been ignored”. Justine Picardie did a glossy photo feature for the Telegraph colour supplement; “a glossy-haired hero”, suggesting a Hollywood blockbuster with Russel Crowe and Julia Roberts.

    Wakefield ticks your boxes for distrust – he promoted vaccines, and the so-called MSM promoted him – yet for some reason you invert your usual values in this case. This isn’t scepticism; it’s gullibility.

    #54911 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark
    ‘…Lorraine Fraser had a dozen articles about him including an exclusive interview in the Telegraph describing him as “a champion of parents who feel their fears have been ignored”…’
    Good on her! Did she get the sack?
    Every now and again, particularly in the past, even MSM like the BBC can put out spectacularly good articles or documentaries, like the ‘Operation Gladio’ series, and ‘Dead in the Water’ about the USS Liberty (53rd Anniversary just passed). Panorama used to put out some good stuff too. And Thatcher was so angry about ‘Death on the Rock’ that she made sure the company that put it out didn’t get their broadcasting licence renewed. Credit where it’s due – once in a blue moon, MSM steps up to the plate.

    #54924 Reply

    “Good on her! Did she get the sack?”

    No, she got British Press Awards Health Writer of the Year 2002.

    There were thousands of MSM articles pushing the MMR-autism myth. They reported every unsubstantiated rumour of Wakefield being right, and studiously ignored multiple peer-reviewed papers showing his results were false positives.

    I have brought you new information, but are you capable of reassessing, or have the thoughts fossilised in place?

    #54925 Reply

    Paul, you linked to I spent yet more of my time taking a look around this site and I have severe doubts about it, eg. it blatantly misrepresents Greta Thunberg to actually invert the meaning of the quote they abstracted, casting her as a supporter of big finance. It hosts global warming denial, and misrepresents Extinction Rebellion.

    I think you need a lot more scepticism of these obscure websites. Natural News is another, with a load of hit-pieces based on sting operations aimed at Bernie Sanders. I suspect a lot of these sites are covert PR company products.

    But just ignore your ally, because you made your decisions years ago.

    #54927 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark June 11, 2020 at 14:52
    You are right about the Oye website, but the info checks out on sound sites:
    Oxford COVID-19 vaccine to begin phase II/III human trials‘.
    The Vaccine Reaction‘.
    Seems they are not giving out much info, particularly re the 5 – 12 age group.
    Some sites say no financial reward, others say £625. If the £625 is available for ‘child recruits’, it could certainly be a strong incentive for some parents, but like I said, I can’t find info on it.
    The Big Pharma normally test their vaccines on Third World children, but more of them are beginning to wise up.
    Whether their is a financial incentive or not, it doesn’t seem right to expose your children to be guinea pigs for a new vaccine. If an adult wants to volunteer, fine, but to ‘volunteer’ your children is something else.

    #54928 Reply
    Paul Barbara

    @ Clark
    You are also right about Natural News. I have known for a long time it is highly suspect politically, pro-T’rump, anti-Russian and anti-Chinese, but healthwise they seem sound. If I see something on there now, I try to get confirmation from different sources.
    The guy who runs it, Mike Adams, seems to genuinely believe what he puts out – when T’rump was waffling about Mandatory vaccines, he openly disagreed and was willing to stop supporting him. But politically he is typical Right-Wing Redneck.
    I bought a jug water filter that he recommended on his TV show (Zero Water), not from him but from the UK. I don’t believe he sells them – he did a sophisticated test of about ten jug filters, and that was one of the best. It’s expensive (filters £12.50 each, last three weeks) but it certainly is effective. Way I look at it, it’s the equivalent of a pint of beer a week.

    #54930 Reply

    It’s the way slanted it rather than the info. The new vaccine has already had phase I trials on adults only, and the Phase II isn’t only on children, as the oye site managed to suggest by omission. The vast majority of recruits will be adults.

    “The guy who runs [Natural News…] seems to genuinely believe what he puts out”

    Yep, that’s how it works; use a front to fund the sincere because they’re more convincing and have better reputations. That’s how much of the global warming denial campaign was run, routing funds and articles to well-intentioned bloggers. That campaign has wasted over thirty years in that battle, until eighteen years of arctic ice melt made it undeniable. It would have been easy to fix if we’d started in 1988 when Hansen testified to Congress. Now, it’s the Devil’s own mess.

    Big Pharma have major incentives in anti-vax. If the US vaccine court were abolished, all the claims for well established vaccine injuries would have to be fought by the parents, using their own funds versus corporate legal departments; what do you reckon their chances would be? The rich might win, but the poor with inexperienced public lawyers would be stuffed. And the less vaccination there is, the more pharmaceuticals will be used in treatment of the preventable diseases. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if big pharma are actually funding anti-vax.

    #54931 Reply

    “The Big Pharma normally test their vaccines on Third World children”

    And not just vaccines. There’s a whole section about it in Goldacre’s Bad Pharma. All the regulations are more lax in poorer countries, including the monitoring to ensure that the same data (promoted for publication because it’s positive) doesn’t get recycled into multiple misleading papers.

    #54932 Reply

    “it doesn’t seem right to expose your children to be guinea pigs for a new vaccine”

    That depends how dangerous you think vaccines are. There have been countless billions of vaccinations. Occasionally something goes wrong, but with so much vaccination, the proportion is small.

    But the anti-vax sites gather this all up from over decades, and present it over and over again to make it look like there’s a major problem. They also claim all the problems are covered up, yet their examples of problems link to public sources!

    Then the right-wingers link it all to the supposed UN “depopulation agenda”. Agenda 21 is a UN sustainability initiative, so no wonder the right are spreading fear of it; it opposes big business’s wish to do as it likes, trample rights, trash the environment and make billions. Did you get this link from Iain Orr?

    RealLifeLore2 – Why Diego Garcia Is America’s Most Controversial Military Base (YouTube, 10m 28s)

    See the bit about the International Court and the vote at the UN General Assembly. The UN isn’t all bad. The major problem are the five Permanent Members of the Security Council.

Viewing 40 posts - 401 through 440 (of 514 total)
Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety
Your information: