You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: FaceBook removes all doubt: Vaccines are dangerous!
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.
Nothing in that article, nor your comment, showed that in any way. Doctors today do know it's Scarlet fever making folks sick just as they did when those charts were created, and despite these new strains evolving, the rate of death and permanent injury remains low because of improved treatment - not vaccines.
You go ahead and compare eating spinach and infants suffering toxic metals being injected directly into their blood. If you do not grasp how introducing minerals in the digestive tract where mechanisms have evolved over billions of years to handle them is different than injecting them directly into our blood, which is a novel 'unnatural' mechanism to our bodies, then I cannot be of further assistance to you.
You simply ignore reason, so reasonable arguments cannot contribute to your understanding. There is no vaccine for Scarlet fever today, and there never has been, and the fact that incidence of Scarlet fever and Measles remain similarly controlled reveals vaccines have almost no impact on Measles, because they do have NO impact on Scarlet fever.
The only thing that impacts Scarlet fever is hygiene and treatment, and those same impacts control Measles, not the vaccine. This is what the charts reveal, and they do not mislead. You just misunderstand.
Boy are you confused. The chart wasn't made back then, it was made based on what the person wrote to whoever's name was listed at the bottom, the queen or some shit. You can argue all day long but you don't have any idea what you are saying. Besides spinach and baked goods aluminum is just as prevalent in baby formula's and is found in mothers breast milk, as aluminum is found everywhere on earth, in some highly industrialized area's it even more prevalent. That may actually explain why scientist have looked at it as a possible link to Alzheimer's out in California where they have the most documented case increases of it, they have a high amount of pollution, within that pollution there is more aluminum than in places that are not industrialized. An adult has 30 to 40 mg of aluminum in their bodies, maybe, speculative because it would be based on what kind of exposure people have to aluminum, 1 to 2 mg of that would be attributed to vaccines in their lifetimes...depending upon how many vaccines they received and if they continue on later in life getting flu shots then that amount could go up out of the 40 to 50 mg. The rest all comes from food, containers, environment and air pollution. This is all preliminary for me as I am not done looking at everything, up to and including how it may or may not played into chronic fatigue syndrome as vaccines are injected into muscle.
Overall though I don't think that aluminum is really your issue here. If you were really that concerned you'd already done some research and asked yourself the very questions I am asking myself, especially after reading that scientist are studying the whole relationship of aluminum overall in any possible health connections as enough of it could find it's way into one's brain. If you did do all that I'd think that by now you'd not only be preaching about vaccines but warning people not to drink beer, pop out of aluminum cans, to grow their own gardens (not that that will eliminate aluminum out of your food as the earth is infiltrated with it) but at least if you can your own vegetables in canning glass instead of buy vegetables in aluminum cans that also will minimize your exposure. The conclusion I come to isn't should I be studying, debating the health effects of aluminum one way or another with you but come to grips with the fact that what's really bothering you is the fact that the government mandates vaccines. You simply can't stand any government interference in your life. I am not saying that's a bad thing but you really should live up to the honesty of it all. Sure would say me a lot of time as in the end, as I stated before, if things continue down this track the finally conclusion I am going to come to is that you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't.
Your inability to grasp the meaning of the charts remains apparent.
Well, yeah, that bothers me. It's an existential threat. I have complete and full responsibility to defend my life and property, among other things, and when some powerful gang of psychopaths claims the right to inject whatever they want into my body, I will defend my life against that claim.
Our bodies have evolved to exposure to various things via our digestive systems and through breathing. Injection bypass all that and have far more dire affects on us because of bypassing the mechanisms our bodies have developed to prevent harmful inputs from harming us.
I am not obsessed with aluminum, although I'm also not gonna advocate drinking from aluminum, nor drinking beer and soda. I strongly favor gardening. These are not the actual topic we undertook discussing, so your segue is facile.
The charts reveal that improved medical treatment and basic hygiene did almost all of the heavy lifting regarding control of the relevant diseases. I've argued with people like you before, and there's no point, because even if you eventually run out of sidestepping, and the other tricks deployed to prevent acknowledging fact and say the words, it won't mean a damn thing, and you'll stick by your empty guns anyway.
Be well.
No, you argued that increased hygiene did all the heavy lifting, as medical treatment would have involved vaccines and medicines that were developed after the microscope that convinced people that germs were a "real" thing combined with the fact they could now offer medicines and vaccines that kept the germs at bay. Hygiene was the natural course of action hundreds of years before the invent of the microscope, medicines and vaccines, no amount of natural immunity would have kept many people from dying prior to that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652987/
Clearly I am not talking about vaccines, and am talking about medications otherwise under the unbrella term 'improved medical treatment'. And, amongst the primary mechanisms was indeed hygiene. Prior to the Civil War, doctors didn't wash their hands between patients much.
This is centuries after the invention of the microscope by Leeuwvanhoek in the 17th Century.
Of course you didn't read the link I gave you. It's only a hypothetical guess on your part that doctors didn't wash their hands in between patience, the evidence in the link suggest otherwise, hygiene was always viewed as a defense mechanism, basically the only one they had back in those times. Along with your analogy of not vaccines just talking about medication....the link discusses that also, the voo-doo remedies, the snake oil salesmen type jive....actually medicine and vaccines proven to work didn't occur until the identification and isolation of the germs causing them, which goes back to my comment that this is how we know that chart can be disproved....as the chart indicates dates that there was no scientific way to identify the exact source why a lot of people died back then. You can argue for/against vaccines all day long, that isn't the issue in this chart debates credibility, the issue is there was no scientific way this chart can be held to be true or accurate during certain time frames on it.