FaceBook removes all doubt: Vaccines are dangerous!
FaceBook will now ban anything which goes against the official narrative. Any content or discussion that isn't specifically endorsed by the mainstream (government, media, and tech corporations) will now result in deletion and banning.
Specifically, any criticism, questioning, or skepticism about the safety and efficacy of vaccines is prohibited. (Promotion, advertising, and favourable discussion of vaccines is still encouraged.)
This adds to the long list of bannable topics, like:
- the official 9/11 story is wrong
- cannabis safely treats epilepsy, MS, cancer, and most other major illnesses
- israel is a terrorist state
- men are male, women are female
- fukushima isn't under control
- conspiracy (other than official conspiracies, like Trump colluding with the Russians)
- anything deemed "nationalist", "right of center", "conservative", "libertarian", etc
- gold price manipulation
- freedom of speech (that's the one they banned me for)
Considering all those topics are perfectly legitimate, and the policies are clearly an attempt to stifle the truth, I'm now convinced that vaccines are dangerous. No further investigation required.
Let's not even get into the piles of independent studies, all ignored by big pharma, that show the harm vaccines do. Let's forget that they changed the laws so we can't fault them when we're harmed by their vaccines. Let's forget that they're stifling discussion of the issue. If a social media website insists vaccines are safe for my baby, who am I to argue?
I've done the research, and I know vaccines nowadays aren't safe. I'm a health care professional who has studied this topic from various angles. Before I quit nursing, I was forced to take vaccines "to stay healthy and protect the patients" every year. They made me sick. I was also forced to force patients to take vaccines. They hated it, and I hate doing that to them. When I got out of that profession, I started learning and teaching about vaccine truth - and the truth about other big pharma scams like SSRIs.
What more evidence do I need? FaceBook says the 9/11 official story is true, that cannabis isn't medicine, that conspiracies never happen except when alphabet agencies investigate them, and censorship doesn't exist. Now, they also say vaccines are safe.
Therefore: Vaccines are dangerous.
Thank you FaceBook (and other deep state technocrats) for revealing the truth today about vaccines, after years of raging public discourse and misinformation on the topic. They just helped me decide, in order to keep my newborn safe and healthy, to NOT vaccinate him.
DRutter
It really makes you wonder why all these tech giants suddenly care what people are talking about. They make the claim it's because they want everyone to be safe and not subjected to bad information, all the while pumping whatever advertising garbage people will pay for in a targeted manner. The hypocrisy is palpable.
Everyone in the space is a professional liar, you really have to wonder EXACTLY what their angle is. The answer to that question will never be clear. Too many variables.
Tech giants become increasingly vulnerable to government policies they bigger they get so invariably they have to play ball or risk the wrath of the government. It's simple really.
I vaguely recall an aphorism to the effect that if your enemy is making a mistake, to let them make it. I refer to Fakebook as part of the enemedia, and decline to contribute any data I can withold to their power. As they continue to reduce the market for their product, I continue to be happy they do.
Thanks!
I believe they're protecting the mainstream (their captive market, their cash cow, their future) away from the one thing that could ruin things: the truth.
So yeah, we should shun and/or fight these evil tech giants, for sure. I use them against themselves, I give them little, but manage to help many. But that time too is coming to an end, with the recent rounds of bannings and censorships. The YT changes coming in December are truly disturbing.
When we leave these sites and withdraw our support, it's a good thing in many ways, but it also means we're essentially giving up on the mainstream, who are pretty much going to their destruction at this point. Maybe that's how it has to be, and maybe we did all we could when it was safe to do so, and now we have to duck n cover.
Agenda 21 calls for a global human population of ~1 billion or less, more than 6 billion fewer than live today. Folks that are aware of this and taking appropriate steps to gain means of production nominal to support their survival are far more likely to be amongst the 1 billion than the 6 billion, and folks just going along with whatever without much thought are more likely to be amongst the 6 billion than the survivors.
I can't wrassle the globalists to the ground, but I can shout warnings to their intended victims. Indoctrination, censorship, and propaganda are an existential threat to people that require factual information to base their actions on successfully. Not everyone will do that, no matter how loudly I shout. It would be suicide for me to not prepare for the implementation of the coming pogroms,starvation, and war to put all my efforts into shouting facts at people who don't want to hear it.
This is all I can do.
We were kind of on the fence about the issue but when a big social media giant says only one side of the debate is censored ....like no longer free speech...well that's the epitome of biased to untrustworthy proportions lol
Falsebook is literally batting a thousand... they never fail to ban TRUTH.
FecesBook is part of the deep state. One and the same. It's all CIA, and Zuck is probably an actor/agent, not an actual programmer or businessman.
Got to love freedom of speech! As long the corporations dictate it is ok the crowd is allowed to think but things are more confusing than it first appears. What I can't understand is how crowds are willing to follow with the Black Friday and ridiculous consumerism without the actual need for any of the shit. Up until individuals aren't willing to act and make sacrifices the world will stagnate in free fall. With what right do we humans kill other species, just because government says it's ok? Where is the individuals moral? At McDonald's I reckon.
Posted using Partiko Android
lol nice thumbnail! I bet you can add "cannabis is safe in pregnancy" or even just saying that we don't know it's not will be banned. The whole can't talk about Cannabis Cures Cancer thing feels really personal....it must just be because we're on the right track with most topics. But yeah, to anybody with half a brain, the answer to the question is in the mainstream's reaction...so when there can't even be a discussion or debate around the issue and you're told what the answer already is...you know what's up.
Wikipedia just announced that they're launching their own news-based social media website. It seems worth a try.
I looks like it's already under attack just like the original Wikipedia site was. Remember in the 2000s when people were ridiculed for using Wikipedia, sheesh! Love when articles tell me what to already think in the title...it often makes me think the opposite. Indeed, let's give this site a try maybe....after we step over all the comments here, haha.
Thank you facebook!
@tipu curate
Hah, yeah!
It almost reminds me of that saying "nothing is confirmed until the government has denied it".
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 0/15 - need recharge?)
Thank goodness, I was so tired of one of my relatives posting those anti vaccines articles, maybe that's why they've suddenly disappeared from her post. She didn't even do stuff like that until she married some extremely religious guy. I could go through and counter the majority of the one's she was posting.
What people get confused about is the new reporting system that anyone who see's a doctor after getting a vaccine for illness is reported on the system. That includes even a common cold where a child may run a temperature, that had nothing to do with the vaccine. If someone falls down and breaks a leg three days after a vaccine that gets reported...but it doesn't have anything to do with the vaccine it's just a coincidence.
Just like I got a flu shot this year and lucky I got it early as something's been running through the family like wildfire, high temperature, vomiting, no appetite, it could be the flu but despite being exposed to all of them I haven't gotten it. I use to get sick at least once a year really bad. My doctor would often try and talk me into getting a flu shot and I never would. I told them I never get the flu. Then one year I relented and got the flu shot and I didn't get sick that year. There's been a couple years I haven't gotten sick and during the years I have it's been mild compared to what I use to go through.
People who are anti vaccine won't be happy until thousands of people start dropping dead from illnesses that use to be so prevalent in the past but were wiped out by vaccines. Sure there are risk involved and those who have suffered the risk are compensated but those risk far outweigh a total catastrophe. I know that's easier for me to say then someone who may have lost a child but the evidence is the means far outweigh the risk...including into the future when some adult people whose parents opted not to get their children immunized as children watched as their adult children died or suffered irreparable damage from a lack of vaccine as children.
I am convinced that if there was a world wide unknown deadly outbreak that was killing thousands of people and they found a vaccine these same people badmouthing vaccines would be the first one's lining up to get one.
I cannot count on my fingers and toes the errors and mistatements of fact this statement comprises. You are claiming that people concerned about vaccine safety desire pandemic. That's a despicable libel, and I utterly refute it.
You further expose your misunderstanding of history and the fact that in almost every case of epidemic disease the relevant problem was almost completely resolved prior to introduction of vaccines.
Then you proceed to completely contradict yourself.
If you wish to disinform, continue to not speak the truth, malign good people, and to mistate fact.
I will keep that in mind when I consider your comments.
Same as I said to him and now I can even reassure both of you from an anti vaxxer herself, charts like these are misleading, one for the reason I stated to VC and this statement from the anti vaxxer:
It's important to realize that this problem is not limited to countries like Africa. Inactivated vaccines pose similar health risks in the Western world, including DTaP and hepatitis B vaccines. It's also important to understand that vaccine studies do not look for non-specific effects such as increased mortality.
For example, the specific effect of the measles vaccine is its ability to prevent measles. Non-specific effects include everything outside of that; good or bad. What this means is that a vaccine may effectively help prevent a disease, and is therefore considered a success — even though the non-specific effect could be a higher mortality rate. Very few vaccines have ever been studied to actually ascertain non-specific effects such as mortality rate.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/03/aluminum-vaccine-health-effects.aspx
Believers I have given up arguing with online include vaxxers, warmerists, vegans, flat earthers, libtards, and fluoridationists - been there, done that, can't be arsed anymore...
http://www.frot.co.nz/design/sifty/conspiracies/
I wasn't responding to that angle of the debate. Science is an ever involving process, your prior chart brings into question that very fact (this one to but lets stick to the other one for time being as I don't need more stuff to research right now) that it is misleading to try and prove unscientific date against scientific data. In other words, as I responded to VC's chart provided, it is wholly inaccurate scientifically to state people back in the 1800's were dying of a specific cause as the science was not there to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. One strong case in point was scarlette fever, it cannot be conclusively confirmed that outside of breaking out with a red rash that all scarlette fever deaths were accurately accounted for as there was no way to test back then if those who did not break out with a rash deaths were attributed to scarlette fever. I could probably take your chart, research it and conclusively come to the same conclusion about some illnesses.
Since the only science necessary to document mortality of these diseases is whether or not someone died or suffered permanent injury from these causes, that level of sciencific understanding was undeniably competent to provide solid proof of those metrics.
It's not rocket science.
Hardly.
I am frankly amazed that you post the above response and feel it invalidates the factual and demonstrable reality that vaccines have contributed but little to the eradication of common childhood diseases.
I have long noted your seeming inability to grasp statistical information, as you may recall from our discussions of child sex trafficking and abuse. What his post pointed out was the orders of magnitude more impact of hygiene and better treatment technology over vaccination in reducing mortality of epidemic disease across the board.
We actually strongly agree that vaccination is far less beneficial than propaganda purports, but you seem to feel we somehow do not agree. I cannot fathom this.
The lack of value seem in your response is the consideration of scarlette fever, now commonly referred to as strep throat. There is no vaccination for it but it's just as prevalent today as it was back then, no amount of hygiene is going to save you from getting it....only the fact that the bacterium was isolated at one time to determine it's structure and an dose of antibiotics is going to help that bit of an argument. You can never stand to be wrong about anything, that's hardly my problem.
The fact is that the death toll from all the diseases under discussion was resolved just as it has been for scarlet fever, prior to the introduction of vaccines. You are wedded to supporting vaccines regardless of any facts whatsoever, and simply deny, deride, and deflect every fact and evidence your position is nothing but shilling for Big Pharma.
You present zero relevant facts, and add nothing of substance to the discussion. All that comes from you on any subject regarding science is blatant ignorance elevated to the sacred.
I do not owe you respect for deliberate ignorance, and I will not pretend to.
Sure buddy and I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
Toxic strain of strep causing scarlet fever in Britain
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/09/11/Toxic-strain-of-strep-causing-scarlet-fever-in-Britain/3361568176541/
written: Sept 11, 2019
A new, more toxic strain of strep A bacteria is causing an outbreak of scarlet fever among British children, researchers report.
This is the count just for kids in two countries. Read the article on how it mutates into different forms. Of course you'll deny that "back in the day" it never mutated, each variation capable of affecting/attacking different body parts...which if it attacked the heart and the person died even opening up the person to have a "looksy" they still weren't capable of having the science available to have told them that the strep (scarelette fever) was the initial cause that led to the death. That's why "your chart" was misleading. I wasn't arguing pro's and con's of vaccines I was arguing your chart was misleading.
I am still looking at a lot of stuff concerning vaccines, it's in depth as there is so much stuff out there. When I get into "in depth" stuff I have to be in the mood for a good challenge, mix that with this isn't the only site I blog on and it's going to take me a bit. But one thing for sure I am pretty convinced of is that Spinach when compared to the level of aluminium in vaccines is pretty dangerous stuff and that "yes" if eaten in large enough quantities doctors have made claims it can over one's lifetime accumulate in the brain. Yet I don't see you on a "anti spinach" crusade against not only the government food chart promoting healthy leafy greens but all the health advocates trotting the benefits of eating spinach while ignoring the dangers....and believe me it goes way beyond spinach. What I am seeing is that in the overall long haul in a lifetime you accumulate fives times or greater the amount of aluminum through your diet then you ever will through vaccines and the "super charged" shot theory doesn't quite hit it if one chooses a diet high in foods containing aluminum. Basically by the time I am done I am far more apt to say "you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't" when it comes to deciding whether to be vaccinated as just about everything one eats that has baking soda in it has aluminium in it....so whether it's a "supposed" healthy diet or one based on junk food people are just plain screwed.
Well said - unironically.
Thanks!
Not really, look at my reply to him.
There's nothing libel about it. Right now they can stand confident they are protected by the herd. Take that protection away and they'll be singing another tune.
History is not on your side in that one. There's no way you are going to explain away thousands of deaths a year before the introduction of a vaccine. What they really need to do is get volunteers who'd like to prove the whole scientific community wrong on vaccine, put those people on an island with people infected with measles or any other virus and lets see what unfolds out for them. Let's see how fast they are to jump to prove science wrong.
This statement is pejorative and libelous. You're basically accusing people of desiring genocide. You may not be concerned over injecting heavy metal, human fetal tissue, or all sorts of unidentified nanoparticles into children, but you should be, and characterizing folks that are as genocidal maniacs should be beneath you.
As you can see below, I am not wrong about the bulk of control of diseases for which vaccines have eventuated pre existing the advent of vaccines. Feel driven to counter this data. Search high and low for contrary information. In looking at this chart you should keep in mind that one of these diseases still has no vaccine, yet it is all but eradicated anyway.
I want you to be convinced of this fact, and failing to prove it's false will do that if it can be done.
I really hate to do this to you dude but here's the rundown. The study done by Charles T Pearce was a chart comparison that vaccines had not slowed down the death rate and that people were still dying at increasing rates....not that they were dying exclusively at the hands of the stated illnesses in the chart. His primary argument was that he thought vaccines may have actually compromised people's immune systems thereby they couldn't fight off other diseases. Which a lot of those disease's they had no idea what they actually were....
Scarlett fever ran rampant, discovered in 1685 but it is a bacterium not a virus, there is no Scarlett fever vaccine, Scarlett Fever wasn't cured until penicillin was discovered in 1928.
There was no was they knew measles was measles as it wasn't discovered until the 1930's by John F. Enders...so before that date in time there was no diagnosis and no measles vaccines.
They couldn't have known anyone had whooping cough at it wasn't discovered until 1906 and the vaccines against it were weak as it is also caused by a bacterium, it is still persistent to this day even though in 1949 there was a vaccine that was more potent in fighting it.
Diphtheria wasn't discovered until 1888 and in 1890 they produced a vaccine that worked it wasn't until in the 1920's when the vaccine's use became wide spread did they see a significant drop in cases.
So you see it wasn't even that the vaccines suppressed the immune system, these people just got other serious diseases and died.
You seem not to understand the chart. Do you see where the vaccines are introduced? These diseass were all almost totally under control by the time the vaccines were introduced. That was my point. Vaccines did not do most of the job. They actually almost had no effect compared to the effects we had already achieved.
Scarlett Fever is a particularly good example of this, and why it's on the chart.
But Scarlett Fever was almost completely eradicated by 1927. Penicillin did not reduce Scarlett Fever deaths even remotely as much as better hygience already had.
These diseases were not eradicated by vaccines, but by better treatment and living conditions, and that's what this chart shows.
Do you just make stuff up? You're claiming the first case of Whooping Cough was1906. You know that's false.
I am observing that you are utterly going to ignore facts and reality and stick to your story. There's no point in discussing it then. No one will be proved wrong except you when you stick to your story despite it being false.
Won't hurt me none, and I'm not responsible for you. Good luck with that.
No, it was the first time in was isolated in 1906, before 1906 it was labeled whooping cough as that is what happened to people who contracted the bacterium, after the confirmation (or isolation) of the bacterium it became labelled Pertussis.
You really have no clue what scarlett fever really is do you? You have no idea it's not eradicated as much as you'd like to think.....it's strep throat, something people get to this very day, something which some people react to by also showing signs of red blotchy bumps on their bodies. Yes it's true...thousands of people today get scarlett fever and it can be just as deadly as it was in the yester years.
You really need to look at the report mentioned in the chart. Look up the guys name and read it. They couldn't even have kept records on those mentioned in the chart as statically back then someone getting strep throat who didn't break out in bumps may have never been diagnosis as having scarlett fever...so they can't go back and say someone who was listed as coughing and high fever was scarlett fever because there was no way to confirm the bacterium in the body at the time...so minus the red bumps they'd never known.
What this guy said was that with the invent (of minimal vaccines back then) that people's deaths weren't declining, he tried to attribute it to the vaccines causing a immunity problem so people couldn't fend off illnesses....but that wasn't true, what was true was that in the future they'd finally found the science that helped them isolate the bacterium or virus that was killing people. If what he was saying were held to be true then that would be like saying that because someone got a vaccine they'd never die of something else as the body should have been strong enough to fend it off...we know that's hog wash.
You can never stand being proven wrong but aren't you the guy who posted this:
Yeah, I book marked that. This is exactly what that is except it deals with illness vs climate change. Someone took what this guy said and attached labels of illnesses to it to further their anti vaccine agenda.
Now before you come back at me at least take the time to go read what this guys report was and see he doesn't mention anything other than the rates of death unattributed to any various causes. I gave you that much consideration you should have no problem doing the same.
I am glad you support Heller and agree with his assessment of climate science and political propaganda on the matter. You seem to fail to grasp that both vaccination and privatization of Earth's carbon are aspects of globalism.
You have indeed got the vaccination issue backwards. Just as AGW alarmists misrepresent relevant issues to facilitate their ultimate goal - which ordinary people do not understand - of privatization of Earth's carbon, Vaccine advocates mirror that propaganda to facilitate direct introduction of every possible genetic, toxic, psychoactive and medical intervention into civilians conceivable. You can compare the governmental mechanisms, enemedia propaganda, and indoctrination that has been undertaken on both issues and those exact same elements of disinformation and collectivation is impossible to miss.
Just as Heller's review of the evidence reveals that insuperable disinformation is how AGW alarmism is advanced, the chart's that @frot and I both posted reveal that same fact regarding vaccines.
You sound a bit.... indoctrinated.
I come from an era when growing up there were adults unlucky enough to not have been vaccinated as children, they suffered the ill effects of some of these diseases and I watched these people struggle the rest of their lives with it. I think one thing that may be the problem with today's younger people, they never actually witnessed the deformities from such things as polio and the profound effect it had, if they had they know it wasn't no laughing matter watching people struggle in leg braces or spend their life walking around bent over.
You can't argue with a believer! - They believe...
http://www.frot.co.nz/design/health/vaccination/
"I could go through and counter the majority of the one's she was posting."
I dare you to. Nay, I challenge you to a debate. Right here, using the content of this relative of yours that you have claimed that you could 'counter'.
Yeah like if I wanted to spend a few hours strolling through months of FB post to find them.
Go ahead...lay one out and I'll see where that gets us.
""I could go through and counter the majority of the one's she was posting.""
So your claim isn't actually able to be proven. You just announced that you 'could', if you wanted, but don't want to. I thought as much.
I propose that you cannot actually counter the majority successfully.
Ok fine, then I'll submit one to you. How bout an easy meme with a quote from this vaccine marketing specialist, which actually goes right along with what Senator Pan keeps saying.
Can you make sense of it for me, and explain how all those toxic ingredients, combined together, are rendered harmless?
Then after that we can move on to you proving that your claims about "Vaccine Induced Herd Immunity", are actually a real thing. You see, it isn't, but I would love for you to prove your claim about 'anti-vaxxers' being "protected" by the herd.
Here, another explanatory meme, with crayon underlining to help with what I am looking for in the proof of your claim that counters actual science:
The first one's going to be easy...the second one I'll have to study...I'll be back.
Why would you have to study it if you already made the claim that Anti-Vaxers are being protected by the vaccinated herd?
This tells me that the first won't be easy for you either. But, by all means, if it is that easy to prove all those toxic ingredients/materials contained in the vaccine are, rendered harmless when combined, I can't wait for your proof!
I could wing it on generality of the old "measles party's" theory of gained immunity....which you'd lose based on an opinion there were still more risk involved as it required participants to be infected...which common sense would tell you the more people infected the higher the mortality/consequences of serious life threatening complications....but common sense doesn't prevail with some so I'll go dig and see if I can find some documented evidence somewhere before laying the ground work for this debate.
The other lies on whether once introduced into the body it stays in the body which it don't otherwise people like me who eat a lot of tuna would have long been dead by now....but I'll make sure I bring forth more than just that, like stated dispensation, how much stays in vs how much dissipates, etc.,
You could "wing" it and you would be incorrect. Just as incorrect as, everything you have said so far.
Currently you are all over the place. The Logical Fallacies are flying, and you literally have zero ground to stand on. So far you have avoided proving, any, of your claims.
Don't speak of "Common Sense", unless you are willing to demonstrate that you have some. Common Sense doesn't require a plethora of logical fallacies.
Let me be even more clear than before. -VACCINE INDUCED herd immunity, is not the same as a "Measles party", which is going for 'Natural' immunity. The ONLY way to achieve "Herd Immunity" is by -Natural- immunity.
Clearly you do not even grasp the difference between Ingestion vs Injection. You should really, really look into that first. Cytokine Storm and all that.... I'll give you a hint, when you EAT tuna, you are not INJECTING it ;)