Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[psychoslice]

Uh huh. Of course we all know people who know this guy. What makes their claims any more realistic than any other random person who says "Well, I know this guy who knows this guy."
And if they did find hard evidence that disproves incorrect knowledge: they are shame to science. There silence would then be putting millions at risk: shame on them.
But it masquerades as being "banned," but, there it is, freely available for all. There are also "banned" sites for dating and penis enlargement methods. When it's banned, that means it's like it is in China and nobody sees it. It wouldn't be freely available to be so easily linked to a public forum like this.
And why can nobody find the CDC apology from the CDC itself? If the information was right there, they wouldn't deny it. Not unless it is "right there" as in Roswell "Right There."

Think of it, if there was mischief happening in the government, do you think every man and his dog is going to be out there telling the truth, I mean those who work there, of course not, it would all be hashed up, but in time it may be revealed, the truth always in time surfaces.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Think of it, if there was mischief happening in the government, do you think every man and his dog is going to be out there telling the truth, I mean those who work there, of course not, it would all be hashed up, but in time it may be revealed, the truth always in time surfaces.

But these vaccines have had "time." The "truth is out there" that a prison I live nearby, which sits on an air force reserve base, is in reality a FEMA Death camp. They too say the truth will reveal itself "in time," but their FEMA death camp has not only a prison and reserve base, but also housing edition, golf course, museum, it used to have a school years ago, but it does today have a Burger King.
And I have watched their videos of evidence, their "unnamable sources" who can't be identified for fear of repercussions, but, in the end, a prison is a prison. But I've known too many people who have worked at that prison, a few higher up on the clearance, and I have known too many people who have been incarcerated in it, to ever believe it is actually a FEMA death camp.

 

[dgirl1986]

Peer, lol.

Yes...other people in the field...who else would be more valid?

 

[psychoslice]

Yes...other people in the field...who else would be more valid?

But most feed the lies to each other so non of them really know the truth, just like doctors are told how good vaccines are, but in reality most doctors really know nothing.

 

[dgirl1986]

But most feed the lies to each other so non of them really know the truth, just like doctors are told how good vaccines are, but in reality most doctors really know nothing.

What lies? Have you read a research report? Do you know how much goes into and how strict the guidelnes are for not only the reasearch but also the publication? Do you even know how vaccines work?

 

[psychoslice]

But these vaccines have had "time." The "truth is out there" that a prison I live nearby, which sits on an air force reserve base, is in reality a FEMA Death camp. They too say the truth will reveal itself "in time," but their FEMA death camp has not only a prison and reserve base, but also housing edition, golf course, museum, it used to have a school years ago, but it does today have a Burger King.
And I have watched their videos of evidence, their "unnamable sources" who can't be identified for fear of repercussions, but, in the end, a prison is a prison. But I've known too many people who have worked at that prison, a few higher up on the clearance, and I have known too many people who have been incarcerated in it, to ever believe it is actually a FEMA death camp.

Well of course it doesn't apply to every situation, but in this situation I believe it does, but time will tell, and all we can do is do what we need to do, not forcing anything onto others.

 

[psychoslice]

What lies? Have you read a research report? Do you know how much goes into and how strict the guidelnes are for not only the reasearch but also the publication? Do you even know how vaccines work?

Yes I do know, many are pushed through the system to be marketed as soon as possible, without all the proper testing .

 

[dgirl1986]

Yes I do know, many are pushed through the system to be marketed as soon as possible, without all the proper testing .

Have you read full research reports? How are they marketed and how would they be pushed through for publication when they need to adhere to a strict guideline and be peer reviewed before this happens? Or are you talking about articles instead of actual research reports?

 

[psychoslice]

Have you read full research reports? How are they marketed and how would they be pushed through for publication when they need to adhere to a strict guideline and be peer reviewed before this happens? Or are you talking about articles instead of actual research reports?

That's it, they do need strict guideline, but are they really doing that, of course you read that they do, and you believe that.

 

[dgirl1986]

That's it, they do need strict guideline, but are they really doing that, of course you read that they do, and you believe that.

It is not just that I read that I do. I am studying to be a psychologist and we have had extensive instruction on the processes involved and what will not be excepted when it comes to publication of editorial pieces and research reports in journals etc.

 

[psychoslice]

It is not just that I read that I do. I am studying to be a psychologist and we have had extensive instruction on the processes involved and what will not be excepted when it comes to publication of editorial pieces and research reports in journals etc.

But you like everyone else, is taught what you need to know, and that is all you will ever know if you don't do your own investigation.

 

[dgirl1986]

But you like everyone else, is taught what you need to know, and that is all you will ever know if you don't do your own investigation.

If you provide some sources I will be happy to check them out.

 

[psychoslice]

If you provide some sources I will be happy to check them out.

No No, you have to do your own investigation, even if I am wrong, you yourself must always be ahead of what you are being taught, this is called intelligence, PHD's and whatever mean nothing id you don't think for yourself.

 

[dgirl1986]

No No, you have to do your own investigation, even if I am wrong, you yourself must always be ahead of what you are being taught, this is called intelligence, PHD's and whatever mean nothing id you don't think for yourself.

That is not the definition of intelligence. You are making a claim and I have never found anything in all the times I have researched the subject that backs up your claims.

If you want people to consider your point of view, you need to find some references and share. Otherwise, why should people take your claims seriously?

 

[psychoslice]

That is not the definition of intelligence. You are making a claim and I have never found anything in all the times I have researched the subject that backs up your claims.

If you want people to consider your point of view, you need to find some references and share. Otherwise, why should people take your claims seriously?

I think the thing is, that you are only looking at that which you suppose to look at, don't get sucked into conditioning.

 

[philbo]

No No, you have to do your own investigation, even if I am wrong, you yourself must always be ahead of what you are being taught, this is called intelligence, PHD's and whatever mean nothing id you don't think for yourself.

I'm sure I'm not alone here in being able to state categorically that I have done my own investigation, and have found nothing remotely credible that supports your paranoia.

Which is why I tend to believe that you have no sources, and all this "find out for yourself" is bluster so that you can maintain your delusion because deep down you know it is resting on nothing at all.

Unless you do provide something a little more concrete, there is zero chance you will convince anyone of anything because the more investigations I do, the more evidence I find that you're just plain wrong. The truth *is* out there, but I don't think you can bring yourself to look at it.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm sure I'm not alone here in being able to state categorically that I have done my own investigation, and have found nothing remotely credible that supports your paranoia.

Which is why I tend to believe that you have no sources, and all this "find out for yourself" is bluster so that you can maintain your delusion because deep down you know it is resting on nothing at all.

Unless you do provide something a little more concrete, there is zero chance you will convince anyone of anything because the more investigations I do, the more evidence I find that you're just plain wrong. The truth *is* out there, but I don't think you can bring yourself to look at it.

That's it, you will never be satisfied, you have made up your mind and nothing in this world will ever change that, to you I can only say, think for yourself.

 

[philbo]

That's it, you will never be satisfied, you have made up your mind and nothing in this world will ever change that, to you I can only say, think for yourself.

All I can say is that you're as wrong about me as you appear to be about everything else in this thread: and you do realize that sentence is self-contradictory?
If I have made up my mind and nothing would change it, then that pretty much means I am satisfied.

I will change my mind if there's suitable evidence to make me do so: I have on several things in the past. But it takes evidence, not somebody spouting conspiracy theories without the flimsiest vestige of anything to back it up: in this case, it will take better evidence than million-strong population studies which show no harm, or something concrete to prove that everyone involved in these studies have committed fraud. Saying "money" and pointing does not count as evidence of fraud - if you think money has caused a cover-up show me the bank balances with a few hundred thousand mysteriously appearing from Mr B Pharma to all those researchers. Besides, if Mr-not-a-Dr-any-more Fraudypants is anything to go by, there is a lot more money to be made asserting that vaccines cause autism than there is in doing the research properly.

 

[SomeRandom]

There are science that do agree that vaccines need to be looked at, but most don't say anything because of the backlash and even losing their job.

Which ones specifically? There are branches of "Science" which do not pass scrutiny just FYI. What are their qualifications? Are they Immunologists specifically (which would carry more weight than even doctors.) What are their studies saying? Are their studies peer reviewed?

You see, there's a certain level of scrutiny that applies to ALL SCIENCE. Don't matter the field, don't matter the scientist.

So just saying that there are "science that do agree that vaccines need to be looked at" doesn't really say anything other than people may oppose vaccines. Pfft so? There are "science" that agree that Gravity needs to be looked at. Doesn't mean I have to care about them before they pass muster in the field of Science like everyone else has to.

 

[philbo]

So just saying that there are "science that do agree that vaccines need to be looked at" doesn't really say anything other than people may oppose vaccines

Been pondering this.. I don't think there's anyone "in science" or not who thinks vaccines should be unscrutinized. Vaccines *are* being "looked at", by huge numbers of people, every day.

This whole "no research/released untested" assertion is utter twaddle - a few months ago, any pharma company could have made billions with a working ebola vaccine.. though none came on the market at the point where they were most needed because they were being tested. I know they were being tested, because I know two people who were part of the phase 1 trials - the guinea pigs who volunteered to show that the vaccine doesn't cause harm. Even for a disease as nasty as ebola, where it could even be argued from an ethical perspective that even if the vaccine did cause harm, the possibility of protection might make a vaccination programme in the areas at risk a good idea. But even so, the proper testing channels were followed, nothing was rushed to the market and the outbreak died down without a vaccine being available. There's still a lot of money to be made from an ebola vaccine, so you can guarantee one will come to the market, but it will have gone through exactly the sort of rigorous test that some people are saying doesn't happen.

Hell, if they'd had a vaccine on the market, I bet they'd've sold millions in the US alone, given the reaction of some sections of the population

If there's a criticism to be levelled at the pharma companies, it's that they knew ebola was out there, but didn't even start trying to develop a vaccine until it looked like it might threaten the Western world.