Bitcoin Forum

If the pro-vaccinators wish the anti-vaxxors to take the vaccines to keep the herd safe from disease (herd theory)
Do Bitcoiners have the same argument - everybody should use Bitcoin to keep (the herds money) safe.

What I mean is, do Bitcoiners have the right to abuse non-Bitcoiners because of their choice of money?

(of course I would never do it)

Abusing anyone for any reason is not nice and not OK. But there's freedom of speech and some think that it give them the right to do so...


...and there's the freedom of choice. For vaccines, for currency....

Once again it wouldn't be the Bitcoiners themselves who would punish non-Bitcoin users.

It would be the regulations or lack of, which could allow Bitcoiners to punish non-Bitcoin users.

To ignore hard mathematics in my opinion is the very definition of stupid, the same goes for science, we all know vaccinations actually help people and immunise them so as I've said the people who are going against this stuff are taking pride in being complete morons.


And where did you pull this blatant assumption out of? Your arse? Also I don't think anyone has a right to abuse anybody, doesn't mean I won't say they're stupid for not at least putting a percentage of their income into Bitcoin though to protect themselves.

Relying on mathematics works for both sides of the argument eg. % of side effects, ( if you believe the statistics are accurate)

"Look at all those stupid people not supporting Bitcoin, they are morons for not knowing the money system is a fraud"

i don't think the vaccine analogy applies to bitcoin. My neighbors use of bitcoin doesn't ensure my safety with bitcoin nor prevent against my harm using bitcoin.

Make sure you get your vaccine... ;D

Don't feel like this is a good comparison unless you don't think vaccines actually help eliminate diseases for the masses.

biggest commercial bullshit on earth. I have no problem for the commercial corporation to flash everyone with their product forcibily, but not market participant... why? because we know. What do we know?

we know that if YOU are vaccinated, I don't have a risk of getting the virus you are vaccinated against, HOWEVER I still can get one of the TRILLIONS that YOU aren't vaccinated. YOU are causing A RISK to ME. the best safe solution is YOU dead. NO RISK. wanna play hc, u will live&die hc mofs.

Actually dead people can still spread diseases, flies will surely help with that.
So even safer is that .. the other guy is sent to outer space, or frozen under 10km of ice or on the other side of the world :)
Outer space would be expensive, but less risky imho.

Nice try :)  I think you may have got the (admittedly a stretch in any direction) analogy reversed. 

Vaccines and fiat:  pushed by private corporations to make a profit off the backs of the less educated. 

Bitcoin does not fill your body with poison and weaken your immune system making you more susceptible to disease.

Though, just like with vaccines, if you do not use Bitcoin, you are not harming someone who does use Bitcoin.

http://ow.ly/HXaRt

Well, the diference with fiat is, some vaccines are actually legit and crucial to be taken as soon as possible. Lives are saved thanks to vaccines.. not all are legit tho.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/guest-post-how-vaccine-hysteria-could-spark-totalitarian-nightmare (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/guest-post-how-vaccine-hysteria-could-spark-totalitarian-nightmare)

It's a work of art.

Here is an except of a very interesting article I found on this issue:
http://www.naturalnews.com/048467_vaccine_industry_intelligent_questions_scientific_principles.html

Question #1) If measles vaccines confer measles immunity, then why do already-vaccinated children have anything to fear from a measles outbreak?


Question #2) If vaccines work so well, then why did Merck virologists file a False Claims Act with the U.S. government, describing the astonishing scientific fraud of how Merck faked its vaccine results to trick the FDA?


Question #3) If vaccines don't have any links to autism, then why did a top CDC scientist openly confess to the CDC committing scientific fraud by selectively omitting clinical trial data after the fact in order to obscure an existing link between vaccines and autism?
His exact statement, published on the website of his legal counsel:
My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.


Question #4) If mercury is a neurotoxic chemical (which it is), then why is it still being injected into children and pregnant women via vaccines? Why does the vaccine industry refuse to remove all the mercury from vaccines in the interests of protecting children from mercury? The U.S. government tells us that lead in water is BAD, but mercury in vaccines is GOOD!


Question #5) If vaccines are so incredibly safe, then why does the vaccine industry need absolute legal immunity from all harm caused by its products?


Question #6) If vaccines work so well to prevent disease, then why do some vaccines (like the chickenpox vaccine) openly admit that they can cause the spread of chickenpox?


Question #7) If vaccines are so great for public health, then why do these historical public health charts show nearly all the declines in infectious disease taking place BEFORE vaccines arrived on the scene?

Read more at GetHolisticHealth.com:
http://www.getholistichealth.com/39215/vacci...
And watch this must-see interview with Dr. Suzanne Humphries who reveals the truth about vaccines:
http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2014/03/20/...


Question #8) If vaccines are perfectly safe, then why did at least 13 people recently die in Italy after being vaccinated?


Question #9) If vaccines are so trustworthy, then why did a pro-vaccine group in Africa recently discover -- to its shock and horror -- that vaccines being given to young African women were secretly laced with abortion chemicals?


Question #10) If vaccines are backed by solid science, then why do some vaccine inserts openly admit they are backed by no clinical trials?
...there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL.


Question #11) If vaccines are so safe, then why does this vaccine insert admit that the Gardasil vaccine causes "acute respiratory illness" in babies who consume the breast milk of mothers who have been vaccinated?


Question #12) If vaccines are so safe, then why does this Gardasil insert sheet admit that the vaccine causes "seizure-like activity, headache, fever, nausea and dizziness" and can even cause those injected with the vaccine to lose consciousness and fall, resulting in injury?


Question #13) If vaccines are totally safe, then why do vaccine insert sheets disclose a long list of frightening and bizarre side effects associated with their vaccines?


Question #14) If vaccines are backed by so much "science" then why do they frequently admit there really aren't any studies of the vaccine for the very groups of people who are often injected with it?


Question #15) If vaccines are so safe to give to pregnant women, then why do the vaccine insert sheets openly admit most of them have never been tested for safety in pregnant women? In fact, this vaccine admits "the effects of the vaccine in fetal development are unknown."


Question #16) If vaccines are so safe to be injected into the bodies of children and pregnant women, then why do their own insert sheets readily admit they are manufactured with a cocktail of toxic chemical ingredients including "fetal bovine serum?" (The blood serum of aborted baby cows.)


Question #17) If vaccines achieve absolute immunity, then why are as many as 97 percent of children struck by infectious disease already vaccinated against that disease?


Question #18) If vaccines are totally safe and effective, then why did this five-year-old girl recently die from the very strain of flu she was just vaccinated against?


Question #19) If the mainstream media claims to report honest, unbiased information about vaccines, then why was there a total nationwide blackout on the news of the CDC whistleblower admitting vaccines are linked to autism?
This was one of the most censored medical news stories of 2014, and the CDC's criminal cover-up stretches back more than 12 years...

Question #20) Why does the CDC falsely claim all vaccines are completely safe and effective when its own website still lists the toxic chemical ingredients used in vaccines?


Question #21) If the vaccine industry cares so much about children, then why does it call for the arrest of parents and the breaking up of families of unvaccinated children, begging for the state to seize custody of those children at gunpoint while incarcerating the parents in prison?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048467_vaccine_industry_intelligent_questions_scientific_principles.html

(source: http://www.naturalnews.com/048467_vaccine_industry_intelligent_questions_scientific_principles.html)


IMO the bottom line is forcing people to put themselves at risk in order to protect yourself from risk is wrong. Even if you accept the fact that vaccines work as stated, that doesn't exclude the possibility that there could be (and are clearly) toxic adulterants added that can cause serious side effects, up to and including death (death is by far not the worst side effect).

I'm quite skeptical myself actually. I think probably some of them do a better job immunizing than others. Probably all of them do work to some extent at their intended task. To the extent which they do immunize people i think all of them do so at a cost. I really don't think this black and white assessment is appropriate.

I understand that you are in favor of choice, so you probably will be in favor of the general premise, but seeing as how you represent the "pro-vaxer" position, the article linked below was quite good I think, I wonder if you would be interested in rebutting any the particulars. Here is link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/guest-post-how-vaccine-hysteria-could-spark-totalitarian-nightmare

Don't get me wrong, as an Anarchist the thought has definitely crossed my mind that the government could be responsible for putting extra hidden things in the vaccinations without our knowledge and we all know how zombie apocolypses usually get started ( The government working on some biological weapon or highly illegal you know the usual stuff :P ) but I guess it all goes down to how much you trust the doctors you see. Problem is that Doctors are generally pretty nice people that don't necessarily give a shit about working for the government etc. and just want to help people so it could be either put in their without their knowledge and so on, just so many factors.

I'll tell you one thing that definitely fucking concerns me is the mental health industry and their casual use of 'psychiatric' ( I use the term loosely there ) drugs but that's been heavily scrutinised and we just need to take the same approach with vaccinations, no bullshit hysteria, no "zomg dem guvernment spies put weird stuff in arr vaccinations!" just smuggle a fucking syringe full out to an independent clinic and have it properly tested, that's how you do this sort of thing properly.

It reminds me of Niel De'grasse Tyson and what he said about aliens, all this stuff is so easy to fake but if you can get the real physical thing then bring it over to a lab and let them take a look at it, exact same situation here, I'm not saying that it couldn't be, I'm just not convinced, I can tell you however that flu vaccinations for cats seem to be a load of shit, they may not necesarily harm them but they don't seem to do anything either, that's probably why they try to sell them.

We all need to question our government more! Most of us just do what they are told. Buy why?
Because its the law they say. So what if its the law! Why is it the law, and who decided to make this law for me?
Too many sheep in this world!

Doctors don't have to be evil to be ignorant or indoctrinated. Ask your doctor what the ingredients in your vaccine are. Watch the puzzled looks.

Ask for relevant papers on disease  prevention efficacy and also question security of injection materials en route to the office.  Then offer a generous payoff for the required paperwork up front. 

Better yet ask the doctor to sign paperwork to the effect that they will take personal liability if you or your children are harmed by vaccination. Watch their buttholes pucker. If they are worried about losing their wealth by injuring you with a vaccination, what makes you think it is a chance you want to take with yourself or your children?

Ok I finished it up today.


Ah ok. So let me be more clear about what i think the concerns are. The risks, to the extent which i suspect they exist, are not the result of conspiracy, but rather incentive incompatibility between the firms producing vaccines and consumers. The federal government insulates vaccine manufacturers from all liability resulting from injury inflicted by vaccines. Quoting uscourts.gov


So if you are injured from a vaccine than the federal government pays your damages instead of the vaccine manufacturer. Its like a weird twilight zone inversion of how in criminal cases the offender pays the state instead of the victim. Here the state, rather than the offender, pays the victim :D :D :D. Its a bit ironic because supposedly the justification that people make for state is that only a sovereign can solve some pubic goods problems by internalizing external costs. Here we have a situation where the decentralized process of common law has developed a mechanism for internalizing external costs (tort liability) and the federal government has come along via fiat power re externalized the problem. The cost of damaging someone with a vaccine has been entirely externalized by the vaccine manufacturer onto the tax payer.

So this would be a pretty serious incentive incompatibility problem in and of its self but actually it gets worse because you see, in the event that a vaccine happened to cause some sort of damage to a person, and in the event that this required symptom management, than it is reasonable to expect that the same pharmasutical corporation that produced the vaccine would likely supply many of the drugs used to treat those symptoms. Profitable even in small doses, but very profitable in the event of life long chronic symptom management.

Now lets be clear, we aren't talking about mr burns tenting his fingers and cackling menacingly behind a desk in some big pharma company. You dont actually need that sort of conspiracy in an organization when everyone's incentives are naturally alined in such a way. The self interested response of the participants will simply trickle up through the culture of the organization. The sub conscious defense mechanisms of the participants will naturally instil in them the right sorts of biases to allow them to pursue self interest without destroying their ego (their image of themselves). Humans are amazing at this. We can dismiss arguments and ignore facts that would put us in the position of needed to chose between maintaining our standard of living or our belief that we are a "good person".

As for your friendly neighborhood doctor. Imagine what would happen to his career if he were to begin advising his patients to not take vaccines? His carrer would be over so fast it would make his head spin, a career that he spent 8 years of his life and a million dollars on preparing for. Again here its nothing to do with conspiracy. The people who would be doing the firing would be immersed in the culture described in the previous paragraph. And the doctor himself isnt thinking in his head, i wish i could advise them not to take vaccines but i would lose my job, just the existential threat of this outcome makes it so that he doesn't even examine the idea. Supposing the cost of vaccines ought weighed the benefits and he found himself in a position of needed to chose between a million dollar investment and "the right thing". What a terrible position that would be to find ones self in. Our sub conscious protects us from putting ourselves in these sorts of situations, we have evolved that defense for good reasons.

Anyway thoughts from anyone on my writings here are welcome.

Exactly it's just another classic symptom of corporatism, the people who regulate these industries are from the industries themselves so naturally their interests aren't aligned with the consumer, thing is, while I don't dispute some very obvious conspiracies out there it pisses me off when I see morons trying to equate everything with a conspiracy. They're not thinking clearly and seem to think that governments are this all encompassing and all powerful force out to get them, they're not competent enough for that.

The choice of money is such because of the value of that currency.  I value whatever has the most utility when it comes to currency.  If I can save money and use bitcoin then I use it.  It's pretty simple.  No one ever has any sort of right to speak negatively of anyone because of what money they choose to use.  Make a currency better then any other and that's the currency that people will end up using.

Government isn't, but corporations ARE competent and certainly well funded enough for this. Government just serves as a tool of the corporations, they don't deserve all the infamy.

Well common knowledge says that you have the right to do anything you please so long as you have a nice shiny set of interdependable reasons to support your actions. Humans' self-proclaimed supremacy on earth is a testament to this. Seriously you have a choice of near infinite reasons for anything you wanna do. And best of all it's all free  :D

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/17/mit-professor-explains-the-vaccine-autism-connection/

Thanks for the link.

My wife works at a high class private school and she says the only kids who dont have vaccines are some doctors kids :D. Anecdotal i know but i found it funny.

Anti-vaxxers are fucking morons.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/ (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/)

Really? So what medical doctor is supposed to be the relevant scientific discipline for performing statistical analysis on a computer database? No. That would be a job for a computer scientist.

shatz. as long as we have the guns... you call us all the name in the world that comfort your lies, it will not change a fact, that you, your dirty friends, will not cross the Wall of PLAoC... you can try... but you, your dirty friends will pay with everything they have including their lives. sorry it ain't pink/black powa here. It's the real world.

First of all I am not "anti-vaccine", but don't let that get in the way of your pathetic attempts at character assassination. Even though there is no peer reviewed studies demonstrating the efficacy of vaccines I am willing to admit some of them MAY be helpful, however, that doesn't make EVERY vaccine and all of the ingredients safe or effective. Its nice to see you can step out in public and make arguments like a big boy though instead of leaving snide comments about your opinions on my feedback ratings. On second thought though, you are just linking some one else's opinion, not making any arguments of your own, so maybe that is giving you too much credit. Its a simple task to criticize people's opinions when you don't make any of your own arguments. Nice and safe from criticism, just how you like it.

http://www.inhabitots.com/mit-scientist-links-autism-to-monsantos-roundup-and-predicts-half-of-u-s-children-will-be-autistic-by-2025/

Of course you would be one to think you know better than MIT scientists tho...  ::)



Reversal +2 points. I bet nubbins thinks he knows more than the CDC too: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/obama-grants-immunity-to-cdc-whistleblower-on-measles-vaccine-link-to-autism/

Appeal to authority isn't very convincing.

Sure just skip over the rest of the perfectly credible evidence and cherry pick little petty things like this to argue. Very convincing. BTW I was commenting more on Nubbins's arrogance than the evidence with that statement, so no, its not really a fallacy.

If Thiomersal causes autism, why have autism rates continued to rise in first-world countries, even though Thiomersal has been removed from all childhood vaccines except the flu vaccine?

If MMR causes autism, why did autism rates skyrocket in Japan after they withdrew the MMR vaccine?

If having a job at MIT means you are infallible in all matters, why don't we hire MIT scientists to work on Bitcoin? Why do we listen to people who didn't go to MIT? Do people who get jobs at MIT automatically lose all their stupid prejudices and approach issues with fairness and rigor? Is that even measurable?


This sentence is half hogwash and half sense. Let's rewrite it to make 100% sense:


I will never get another flu shot as long as I live, nor will I receive a shot for the dreaded <insert this year's animal> flu. That's because those vaccines are /brand new/ and I do not trust people's work when (a) they're rushed and (b) there's a ton of money to be made.

The MMR vaccine is not brand new, and you are quite literally a fucking moron if you opt out of it for ANY reason other than the fact that it will specifically harm your child. Rubella caused 10,000 stillborn babies a year in the USA from 1962-1965.

The Polio vaccine is not brand new, and you are literally a child abuser if you choose not to immunize your child against it.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care if any of you even read this, because you've obviously all swallowed the red pill. I pray that none of you have children.

If there are thousands of peer reviewed studies showing the efficacy of vaccines, you should have no problem citing one of them should you? Please do.

I guess your Google is broken?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20980048 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20980048)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21155091 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21155091)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20692031 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20692031)


Maybe do a bit of homework your fuckin self:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/publications.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/publications.htm)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=vaccine%20efficacy (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=vaccine%20efficacy)

Insert inane, distracting issues that TECSHARE has with these studies or their sources below:

Also, unwatched. Have fun!

Lets ignore the obvious freudian slip here and get right to the heart of the discussion.

Why are you upset sir Nubbins? 

Bitcoin was created to be an alternative to traditional means of payment. As we've seen it benefits from financial instability. So I think that we bitcoiners should accept that FIAT and cryptocurrencies are going to co-exist.

What do you mean "are going to co-exist"?  Don't you mean the present tense "do co-exist"? 

They do, and they will.

Agreed :) 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20980048
This study compares 3 different polio vaccines to each other, without a control group. This is not a general efficacy study but one that only compares vaccines to each other (not compared to unvaccinated).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21155091
This study only demonstrates that increased antibodies were detected, not the efficacy of the vaccine in disease prevention itself.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20692031
This study is on ORAL vaccinations. The body reacts very differently to consuming substances rather than injecting them directly into the blood stream. This is a very important distinction especially considering adverse reactions.

Try again.



He is stalking me by obsessively going over my recent posts and came here in a pathetic attempt to try to slander me for speaking out about his abusive behavior here on the forum. He is upset because once he spoke he realized he can't hang in an actual debate without personal attacks or mudslinging.




Of course. You are incapable of engaging in an actual debate. If it can't be "won" without slinging insults and personal attacks, you can't hang. I would like to say I expected more from you (but I didn't).



Other interesting links: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/doctors-against-vaccines-the-other-side-of-the-story-is-not-being-told/
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/02/forced-adult-vaccinations-at-federal.html

From another thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg10544308#msg10544308 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg10544308#msg10544308)