The Vaccine Hoax is over. 30 years of cover ups revealed!

1. 61

   sannyasinmanposted 10 years ago

   http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/10/the-vaccine- … f-coverup/
   
   What do you think?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think we should stop all vaccination programs immediately.
      
      It would go a long ways to reducing the surplus population, aka "Scrooge".

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Still beating this dead horse?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Horses will still get their vaccinations.  It's the people that will be dead, not the horse.

         replyreport
   3. 72

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Howdy Sannyasinman.
      I am receiving a 404-error page not found when using your link and another link on the nsnbc web site. Is there a chance the article has been taken down?
      

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Does the silence from the OP suggest that his posted source has been withdrawn?
         

         replyreport
         1. 61

            sannyasinmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The link works perfectly . ..

            replyreport
   4. 72

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hello there, Sannyasinman. My sincere thanks for your bump post letting me know the link in the OP statement is working.
      
      This thread is based entirely upon a research paper written by Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, a non-medical Ph.D., titled “Vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?” Have you read this paper, Sannyasinman? Of course you have. I can not believe that you would attempt to suggest a hoax of 30 years is a fact without first reading the source document yourself.
      
      Some people who apply critical thinking to their mental processes rely on an old adage attributed to the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. “You’re entitled to your own opinions,” it says, “but not your own facts.” The point is opinions and facts are two different things. Opinions are matters of taste or subjective conclusions, while facts stand alone on their own merits, independent of what you think or how you may be biased. For this reason, it is critical to this discussion to separate opinions from facts.
      
      Let me begin with the title of this thread. Since I am so sure you read this entire 45-page document, as I have, you must already know that “hoax” and “cover -up” are not found anywhere. Dr. Tomljenovic does not claim a hoax or a cover-up has been committed. So is “hoax” and “cover-up” your words or ones you borrowed from someone else? More to the point, however, “hoax” and "cover-up" are not facts. They are opinions of someone other than the author. Opinions attached to Dr. Tomljenovic’s paper by anti-vax advocates in order to create a false impression. They are subjective conclusions but they are not facts. Therefore, the OP statement begins by trying to create an impression that is not based on fact. It is a distasteful tradition in anti-vax literature that is meant to deceive readers. 
      
      Secondly, let us look closely at the title of the paper: “Vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?” A person who thinks critically would be absolutely correct in reaching one specific conclusion, i.e. if the contents of the paper proved that vaccination policy was at odds with the Code of Practice, then Dr. Tomljenovic would not have worded the title in the form of a question. It is always important to remember, Sannyasinman, facts are stated in declarative sentences, and questions reveal the absence of knowledge or facts.
      
      Finally, let us address the rhetorical mantra heard from the vocal anti-vax population, namely vaccination programs should be halted strictly because they present risks from adverse reactions. Medical professionals worldwide who are charged with the public safety reply with resounding disagreement. Moreover, Dr. Tomljenovic appears to generally agree when she says in the very first sentence of her paper, “No pharmaceutical drug is devoid of risks from adverse reactions and vaccines are no exception.” {1}
      
      http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/upl … enovic.pdf

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Very impressive.

         replyreport
2. 61

   sannyasinmanposted 10 years ago

   Quilligrapher . .
   My my, you do like the sound of your own irrefutable logic  . . .
   
   Your quote “No pharmaceutical drug is devoid of risks from adverse reactions and vaccines are no exception.”
   The enormous difference that is conveniently overlooked by vaccine proponents is that drugs are usually given to treat an ailment in the hope that they will improve the condition of the “patient”,
   Vaccines however, are administered to HEALTHY PEOPLE, who sometimes have their lives ruined or even die as a result.
   Can you see the difference?
   
   Vaccines are like a game of Russian roulette. .
   The vaccine may protect you from the disease for a while, or it may not
   The vaccine may injure or disable you in some way, or it may not
   The vaccine may even kill you, or it may not
   Nobody knows. You load the gun (or syringe in this case) and you pull the trigger

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Good analogy, the gun.  You put in 1 bullet to represent the vaccine or you put in 5 to represent the disease.
      
      I know which one I choose...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Since you take the vaccine prior to contracting the illness, your addition to the analogy, the 5 bullets, only holds true if your chance of contracting the disease is at least 83%, (assuming a 6 shooter ).  Otherwise, the decision to accept the gun with one bullet could well be in lieu of not having to play at all.  It should at least be factored in.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         sannyasinmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         . .  trouble is, you have to keep on choosing to play the Russian roulette game and every time you run the risks I mentioned, because no vaccine confers lifetime immunity, and needs "booster" shots  . . . load that gun again and cross your fingers . . .
         
         Plus your children play the game, with its inherent risks MANY times before their own natural immune system even has a chance to develop fully. . .

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            You're absolutely right.  You play the 4 bullet game every time you live in the same town that harbors a visitor returning from a third world country.  Or ride on a plane with them on the way home.  Or go to school with a close relative or friend with them.
            
            Unless, of course, you have already survived the one bullet game.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               We have a child with multiple disabilities and a compromised immune system.  Doctors insist the shots be administered, but we refuse.  In over 20 years, the only time we had a problem was the one time we acquiesced.  Not making that mistake again.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  It would depend on specifics, of course, but it would seem exceedingly stupid to give a vaccine to such a child.
                  
                  On the other hand, your particular experience has almost zero relevance to the huge majority of children that do not have those conditions.  The biggest connection might be that because those millions of healthy children have been vaccinated for decades your own child will have a much better chance of not contracting any of those old diseases.
                  
                  The possibility is always there, of course, but it is much, much lower than it was 100 years ago or still is in other parts of the world.  Because of vaccines...vaccines that are likely to harm your child.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     It is true we carefully control the environment and have been successful against what many have deemed impossible odds.  My spouse and I, of course must interact with the public, work, etc. We also do not take vaccines... with success.  I was one of two, almost fired for refusing to take the vaccine when the boss's son arranged to pay for it.  We were warned how poorly the resulting lost time would reflect on us.  Do I need to tell you the punchline?  We were two of the handful of employees who never got sick that year.  Saying that further strained the relationship between me and the boss's kid would be an understatement.  I never said a word.  I didn't have to. 
                     
                     By the way, I don't campaign against vaccines, (beyond sharing my experiences when the opportunity presents itself).  More power to whoever wants them, it is their choice.  As always though, it is good if they are informed and consider more than the pharmaceutical brochure.

                     replyreport
                  2. 60

                     bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Your right, and this surprised me too.  I can understand pushing for us as parents and caregivers to take the vaccines in the hope we would avoid getting sick and exposing her...but it seems not giving it to my child would be a "no-brainer".

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        But it should not surprise you.  There are very valid reasons to vaccinate the majority of people against the old crippling and deadly diseases, though not nearly so much for such things as the flu in most cases (I don't take that one either).
                        
                        But, in rare cases, there are equally valid reasons not to vaccinate, and your child is the perfect example.  You as parents is not quite so clear cut, but I could certainly understand, and support, your reasons.  I believe I would do the same thing; in some cases the flu vaccine causes the recipient to have the flu (I presume that's the one you are speaking of).  If you are careful who you are around and take other precautions as well, you probably have less chance of getting the flu without the vaccine.  I haven't had the flu for years - ever since my children left home - and some simple precautions keeps it away.

                        replyreport