Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker?

[TECSHARE]

I didn't defend the article, I defended the facts. If any of the statements I made were not factual, please do enlighten me.

Then don't quote me when we are talking about the article that badecker posted because thats the debate, mate, maybe you should learn how to read. His point was that because they did not file some reports they have been lying for 30 years which is simply not true as shown above. He keeps saying there are no safety reports/tests which is again simply not true.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/del-bigtree-vaccine-safety-complaints-hhs-responds/

I don't know what your point is. Yes they did NOT file the required reports of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 but they have done all the required work to make sure vaccines are safe.

But you clearly were not just referring to the article, you were also referring to the ruling that the government has been in violation of reporting laws FOR YEARS. Sorry, if you don't like me pointing out your disingenuous arguments, don't make them.

[Astargath]

I didn't defend the article, I defended the facts. If any of the statements I made were not factual, please do enlighten me.

Then don't quote me when we are talking about the article that badecker posted because thats the debate, mate, maybe you should learn how to read. His point was that because they did not file some reports they have been lying for 30 years which is simply not true as shown above. He keeps saying there are no safety reports/tests which is again simply not true.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/del-bigtree-vaccine-safety-complaints-hhs-responds/

I don't know what your point is. Yes they did NOT file the required reports of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 but they have done all the required work to make sure vaccines are safe.

But you clearly were not just referring to the article, you were also referring to the ruling that the government has been in violation of reporting laws FOR YEARS. Sorry, if you don't like me pointing out your disingenuous arguments, don't make them.

''reporting laws FOR YEARS'' Of specific reports. If they filed 100 reports but 2 of them weren't filed, would that mean they are faking the whole thing? Shit happens, the lawsuit was settled, wasn't it? Just because they didn't file those reports, it doesn't mean they didn't take cafe of the safety of the vaccines. Pointing out they didn't file those specific reports accomplishes nothing, what's the conclusion from that?

[TECSHARE]

I didn't defend the article, I defended the facts. If any of the statements I made were not factual, please do enlighten me.

Then don't quote me when we are talking about the article that badecker posted because thats the debate, mate, maybe you should learn how to read. His point was that because they did not file some reports they have been lying for 30 years which is simply not true as shown above. He keeps saying there are no safety reports/tests which is again simply not true.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/del-bigtree-vaccine-safety-complaints-hhs-responds/

I don't know what your point is. Yes they did NOT file the required reports of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 but they have done all the required work to make sure vaccines are safe.

But you clearly were not just referring to the article, you were also referring to the ruling that the government has been in violation of reporting laws FOR YEARS. Sorry, if you don't like me pointing out your disingenuous arguments, don't make them.

''reporting laws FOR YEARS'' Of specific reports. If they filed 100 reports but 2 of them weren't filed, would that mean they are faking the whole thing? Shit happens, the lawsuit was settled, wasn't it? Just because they didn't file those reports, it doesn't mean they didn't take cafe of the safety of the vaccines. Pointing out they didn't file those specific reports accomplishes nothing, what's the conclusion from that?

I don't know, did you actually even bother to read it? I did. The lawsuit was only settled because it was a FOIA request, and the documents they requested, which were required to be filed by law, were never filed. As a result it was impossible to comply with the FISA request, resulting in the "settled" status. The conclusion is the government is not following the law. None of your other extremist red herring arguments matter, because I never made those arguments.

[tvbcof]

You seriously can't accept the fact that a doctor of 15 years might understand human physiology more than your frantic Google searches?

The salts most associated with arrhythmias are potassium, magnesium and calcium. The salt your uncle wasn't told to eat contains sodium and chloride. These are very rarely associated with arrhythmias. Regardless, the arrhythmia associated with clot formation is atrial fibrillation. At the level of hyponatremia required to induce AF, your uncle would have been suffering from seizures, encephalopathy and potentially in a coma. Not something you and his doctors wouldn't notice. Even if those symptoms were ignored, AF causes clots to form in the left atrium. These clots cause strokes. They do not cause heart attacks. So you are still wrong.

You don't realise just how silly you sound to anyone who actually understand the words you are using. See: Dunning–Kruger effect.

You don't know the patient or anything about his history or the medical event under question.  You don't know the medicine prescribed so you don't know what instructions should or should not have been given.  You make assumptions that by 'salt' I mean table salt.  Yet you, 'a doctor of 15 years', are perfectly happy go into a great deal of detail about the patient's status.

I've noticed that doctors seem to have ethical clearance to do whatever it takes to defend pharmaceutical products against any and all suggestion of potential problems.  And many of them do.  You are doing back-flips on this thread.

Got called on it and got spanked.

If your definition of "getting spanked" is not responding to a completely made up statistic, then there is even less point in talking to you than I thought.

I would continue to systematically deconstruct your Google searches, but honestly, your continued posting is making a far better case for not listening to word you say than I ever could.

At the very best you got trolled into defending doctors against bogus data by coming up with a argument which doesn't make logical sense.  I'm sure it 'sounded good enough at the time', and it impressed the hell out of the Astargath class of mouth-breathers, but someone was around to make you pay the price.  Don't worry about it.  It happens.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You don't know the patient or anything about his history or the medical event under question.  You don't know the medicine prescribed so you don't know what instructions should or should not have been given.  You make assumptions that by 'salt' I mean table salt.  Yet you, 'a doctor of 15 years', are perfectly happy go into a great deal of detail about the patient's status.

I've noticed that doctors seem to have ethical clearance to do whatever it takes to defend pharmaceutical products against any and all suggestion of potential problems.  And many of them do.  You are doing back-flips on this thread.

I assume the fact you have stopped arguing about physiology means your Google searches finally confirmed that you are completely wrong. I never claimed to know anything about the patient, I never claimed to known anything about the medication prescribed, and I never defended any pharmaceutical product. All complete strawmen. The fact is you said low salt levels cause heart attacks. That is a blatant lie and finally Google seems to have confirmed that for you.

At the very best you got trolled into defending doctors against bogus data

I'll take that as a "No, I have no source or evidence for my completely made up statistic". Don't worry about it. It happens. Just means you lost the argument. Again.

[tvbcof]

I assume the fact you have stopped arguing about physiology means your Google searches finally confirmed that you are completely wrong. I never claimed to know anything about the patient, I never claimed to known anything about the medication prescribed, and I never defended any pharmaceutical product. All complete strawmen. The fact is you said low salt levels cause heart attacks. That is a blatant lie and finally Google seems to have confirmed that for you.

No need to assume anything.  I'll tell you.

I'll grant you that I don't know if it was technically a 'heart attack' that he had.  Not because I don't have a basic understanding of the mechanics of the various forms of heart attack, but because I did not receive a technical description of his problem.  The information I received was that he was not expected to live.  He did end up living but he lost 80% of his heart function, and that side of the family tends to have weak hearts anyway.  The trigger for the event was said to be inappropriate use of a recently prescribed medicine resulting in a blood chemistry which was incompatible with life.

Stories about of exactly this sort of thing happening all over the United States.  'Death by doctor' is a thing here, and a lot of people know it because a lot of people have had personal experience with it.

Don't worry about it. It happens. Just means you lost the argument. Again.

No, I just wanted to help you feel better after getting so badly humiliated on this forum is all I meant.

[Astargath]

You don't know the patient or anything about his history or the medical event under question.  You don't know the medicine prescribed so you don't know what instructions should or should not have been given.  You make assumptions that by 'salt' I mean table salt.  Yet you, 'a doctor of 15 years', are perfectly happy go into a great deal of detail about the patient's status.

I've noticed that doctors seem to have ethical clearance to do whatever it takes to defend pharmaceutical products against any and all suggestion of potential problems.  And many of them do.  You are doing back-flips on this thread.

I assume the fact you have stopped arguing about physiology means your Google searches finally confirmed that you are completely wrong. I never claimed to know anything about the patient, I never claimed to known anything about the medication prescribed, and I never defended any pharmaceutical product. All complete strawmen. The fact is you said low salt levels cause heart attacks. That is a blatant lie and finally Google seems to have confirmed that for you.

At the very best you got trolled into defending doctors against bogus data

I'll take that as a "No, I have no source or evidence for my completely made up statistic". Don't worry about it. It happens. Just means you lost the argument. Again.

This is the problem with these people, even when they are completely wrong and absolute clear evidence is presented, even for the smallest mistakes, they wont EVER admit they were wrong. Tvbcof is just another dishonest liar pushing his own agenda, disgusting.

[BADecker]

You don't know the patient or anything about his history or the medical event under question.  You don't know the medicine prescribed so you don't know what instructions should or should not have been given.  You make assumptions that by 'salt' I mean table salt.  Yet you, 'a doctor of 15 years', are perfectly happy go into a great deal of detail about the patient's status.

I've noticed that doctors seem to have ethical clearance to do whatever it takes to defend pharmaceutical products against any and all suggestion of potential problems.  And many of them do.  You are doing back-flips on this thread.

I assume the fact you have stopped arguing about physiology means your Google searches finally confirmed that you are completely wrong. I never claimed to know anything about the patient, I never claimed to known anything about the medication prescribed, and I never defended any pharmaceutical product. All complete strawmen. The fact is you said low salt levels cause heart attacks. That is a blatant lie and finally Google seems to have confirmed that for you.

At the very best you got trolled into defending doctors against bogus data

I'll take that as a "No, I have no source or evidence for my completely made up statistic". Don't worry about it. It happens. Just means you lost the argument. Again.

This is the problem with these people, even when they are completely wrong and absolute clear evidence is presented, even for the smallest mistakes, they wont EVER admit they were wrong. Tvbcof is just another dishonest liar pushing his own agenda, disgusting.

So that's why you can't post a report about a test:

----------

This is a report of a double-blind vaccine test for xxx-disease, and the effects of xxx1-vaccine.

People tested: 100 men, ages 25 to 45, positive for xxx virus.
Number of men given the actual vaccine: 50.
Number of men given distilled water: 50.

Short Term Results:
30 men xxx virus negative within one week after vaccination.
10 additional men xxx virus negative 2 weeks after vaccination.
5 additional men xxx virus negative 3 weeks after vaccination.
7 additional men xxx virus negative 4 weeks after vaccination.
Short Term Conclusion:
Since 15 of the men that became xxx virus negative in the short term were of the control group, the entire results potentially fall into the area of placebo effect. xxx1 vaccine is inconclusively confirmed to be beneficial.

Long Term Results:
Over the 20 years following the test:
43 of the control group remain in reasonably good health.
45 of the xxx1 group developed ADHD, autism, and/or other auto-immune diseases.
4 of the xxx1 group became shootists who attacked schools.
3 of these 4 shootists are dead from fights with police.
1 of these 4 shootists is in prison, solitary where we can't test him.
3 have gone missing, presumed moved out of the country, where we can't monitor them.
8 are in the hospital with near death symptoms.
None of the xxx1 group has remained in good health.
Long Term Conclusion:
We can't be certain that the xxx1 vaccine did any good. However, it appears that this vaccine is extremely unhealthy, or at least potentially so. We would advise that this and all similar vaccines not be used with the public in general.

----------

Quit playing around, and find us some real test reports that show any amount of anything, with an eye on safety, and how the safety was determined. You jokers who think that tests are all around us, show us one.

[BADecker]

The point shouldn't be the idea of having a little bit of testing of vaccines done. The point should be massive amounts of proof for every vaccine. It seems that just the opposite is true. It seems that the one-worlders are using the medical and the government to reduce the general population any way they can.


The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review (CDR), considered by many within the evidence-based medical model to be the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic value of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or outright propaganda that flu vaccines are ‘safe and effective.’ao-opts a natural process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences, many of which have been documented here. Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter (see our article on the vaccine agenda: Transhumanism/Dehumanism).  In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during immunizations because it “interferes” with the vaccine efficacy.

...

“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Source: Cochrane Summaries).

[TECSHARE]

This is the problem with these people, even when they are completely wrong and absolute clear evidence is presented, even for the smallest mistakes, they wont EVER admit they were wrong. Tvbcof is just another dishonest liar pushing his own agenda, disgusting.

I see you exhibit exactly this behavior yourself. Funny how debate becomes difficult and frustrating when no one is willing to stick to basic intellectually honest standards.

[Astargath]

I didn't defend the article, I defended the facts. If any of the statements I made were not factual, please do enlighten me.

Then don't quote me when we are talking about the article that badecker posted because thats the debate, mate, maybe you should learn how to read. His point was that because they did not file some reports they have been lying for 30 years which is simply not true as shown above. He keeps saying there are no safety reports/tests which is again simply not true.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/del-bigtree-vaccine-safety-complaints-hhs-responds/

I don't know what your point is. Yes they did NOT file the required reports of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 but they have done all the required work to make sure vaccines are safe.

But you clearly were not just referring to the article, you were also referring to the ruling that the government has been in violation of reporting laws FOR YEARS. Sorry, if you don't like me pointing out your disingenuous arguments, don't make them.

''reporting laws FOR YEARS'' Of specific reports. If they filed 100 reports but 2 of them weren't filed, would that mean they are faking the whole thing? Shit happens, the lawsuit was settled, wasn't it? Just because they didn't file those reports, it doesn't mean they didn't take cafe of the safety of the vaccines. Pointing out they didn't file those specific reports accomplishes nothing, what's the conclusion from that?

I don't know, did you actually even bother to read it? I did. The lawsuit was only settled because it was a FOIA request, and the documents they requested, which were required to be filed by law, were never filed. As a result it was impossible to comply with the FISA request, resulting in the "settled" status. The conclusion is the government is not following the law. None of your other extremist red herring arguments matter, because I never made those arguments.

''The conclusion is the government is not following the law.'' The conclusion is that the government did not follow the law on that specific case on those specific reports. However, the first argument was ''government doesn't give a shit about safety reports because of this lawsuit'' That's simply not true as shown above. I don't know what your argument is, this thread is about vaccines being bad for you intentionally. Are you sure you know what your position is?

[TECSHARE]

''The conclusion is the government is not following the law.'' The conclusion is that the government did not follow the law on that specific case on those specific reports. However, the first argument was ''government doesn't give a shit about safety reports because of this lawsuit'' That's simply not true as shown above. I don't know what your argument is, this thread is about vaccines being bad for you intentionally. Are you sure you know what your position is?

It is very kind of you to tell me what my own argument is, but I can do without thanks. With those kind of debate skills, you will be going places.

[tvbcof]

I don't know, did you actually even bother to read it? I did. The lawsuit was only settled because it was a FOIA request, and the documents they requested, which were required to be filed by law, were never filed. As a result it was impossible to comply with the FISA request, resulting in the "settled" status. The conclusion is the government is not following the law. None of your other extremist red herring arguments matter, because I never made those arguments.

''The conclusion is the government is not following the law.'' The conclusion is that the government did not follow the law on that specific case on those specific reports. However, the first argument was ''government doesn't give a shit about safety reports because of this lawsuit'' That's simply not true as shown above. I don't know what your argument is, this thread is about vaccines being bad for you intentionally. Are you sure you know what your position is?

Seems to me that TECSHARE is one of the many who's conditioning was mostly successful.  He's not a fawning groupie of the CDC like you, Astergath, but he cannot shake the deeply implanted notion that Big Brother loves him even though most of the actually evidence points to the hypothesis that it is not the case.  Or at best that BB displays his love for his peeps in a counter-intuitive and personally dangerous way.

One of the most powerful tools that the social engineers have is a fear of rejection.  Humans are wired to avoid group rejection because for most of our history it would have been incompatible with life and with reproduction.  TECHSHARE, like most other 'normies', is very concerned about being labeled a 'conspiracy theorist'.

For my part I wear the 'conspiracy theorist' label as a badge of honor.  Eventually, as more and more of these 'conspiracy theories' turn out to be spot-on and in retrospect as obvious as the nose on one's face, having been a 'conspiracy theorist' back in the day won't be such a big deal.

[TECSHARE]

I don't know, did you actually even bother to read it? I did. The lawsuit was only settled because it was a FOIA request, and the documents they requested, which were required to be filed by law, were never filed. As a result it was impossible to comply with the FISA request, resulting in the "settled" status. The conclusion is the government is not following the law. None of your other extremist red herring arguments matter, because I never made those arguments.

''The conclusion is the government is not following the law.'' The conclusion is that the government did not follow the law on that specific case on those specific reports. However, the first argument was ''government doesn't give a shit about safety reports because of this lawsuit'' That's simply not true as shown above. I don't know what your argument is, this thread is about vaccines being bad for you intentionally. Are you sure you know what your position is?

Seems to me that TECSHARE is one of the many who's conditioning was mostly successful.  He's not a fawning groupie of the CDC like you, Astergath, but he cannot shake the deeply implanted notion that Big Brother loves him even though most of the actually evidence points to the hypothesis that it is not the case.  Or at best that BB displays his love for his peeps in a counter-intuitive and personally dangerous way.

One of the most powerful tools that the social engineers have is a fear of rejection.  Humans are wired to avoid group rejection because for most of our history it would have been incompatible with life and with reproduction.  TECHSHARE, like most other 'normies', is very concerned about being labeled a 'conspiracy theorist'.

For my part I wear the 'conspiracy theorist' label as a badge of honor.  Eventually, as more and more of these 'conspiracy theories' turn out to be spot-on and in retrospect as obvious as the nose on one's face, having been a 'conspiracy theorist' back in the day won't be such a big deal.

Lol. Stop acting like you know a damned thing about me. Personally in subjects like these I find it unproductive to discuss anything but hard facts. You keep theorizing if it makes you feel better though.

[tvbcof]

Lol. Stop acting like you know a damned thing about me. Personally in subjects like these I find it unproductive to discuss anything but hard facts. You keep theorizing if it makes you feel better though.

If one won't 'theorize' then one does not have any hope of understanding anything.  One simply has no avenues to explore.  All one can do is regurgitate 'facts' about the way things work as presented by whoever you choose to rely upon.  Relevant to this thread, that would be the FDA, CDC, etc for most of the participants.  So, yes, 'theorizing' is a habit that I enjoy and will continue.

You are relatively good at critical thinking and separating 'facts' from bogus quasi-claims of facts, but certainly don't have anywhere near the god-like powers that you seem to ascribe to yourself.  And here on trolltalk with the likes of Astergath and Dr. Spamzalot hanging around, being able to smoke them out is a bit like being the thinnest kid at fat camp.

Anyway, it is a source of interest to me why someone with your at least modest level of analytical abilities continues to put his full faith and confidence into the benevolence of our medical/industrial complex and is allergic to the hypothesis that whatever suspect actions they take could be anything more than an accident.  I have 'theories' about it, but they are only of academic interest.  Shrug.  Go get maimed and have an expensive and painful death with the rest of them I guess.  I'll continue to 'theorize' about the mechanics behind this all-to-common tragicomic event.

[TECSHARE]

Lol. Stop acting like you know a damned thing about me. Personally in subjects like these I find it unproductive to discuss anything but hard facts. You keep theorizing if it makes you feel better though.

If one won't 'theorize' then one does not have any hope of understanding anything.  One simply has no avenues to explore.  All one can do is regurgitate 'facts' about the way things work as presented by whoever you choose to rely upon.  Relevant to this thread, that would be the FDA, CDC, etc for most of the participants.  So, yes, 'theorizing' is a habit that I enjoy and will continue.

You are relatively good at critical thinking and separating 'facts' from bogus quasi-claims of facts, but certainly don't have anywhere near the god-like powers that you seem to ascribe to yourself.  And here on trolltalk with the likes of Astergath and Dr. Spamzalot hanging around, being able to smoke them out is a bit like being the thinnest kid at fat camp.

Anyway, it is a source of interest to me why someone with your at least modest level of analytical abilities continues to put his full faith and confidence into the benevolence of our medical/industrial complex and is allergic to the hypothesis that whatever suspect actions they take could be anything more than an accident.  I have 'theories' about it, but they are only of academic interest.  Shrug.  Go get maimed and have an expensive and painful death with the rest of them I guess.  I'll continue to 'theorize' about the mechanics behind this all-to-common tragicomic event.

You are relatively good at critical thinking and separating 'facts' from bogus quasi-claims of facts, but certainly don't have anywhere near the god-like powers that you seem to ascribe to yourself.

Son, I was conspiracy theorizing while you were still in short pants. You made me laugh with the fat camp line though, so I will give you an honest answer in spite of your incredibly presumptuous statement about me. The difference between me and you is I know how to debate better than you, and stick to topics I know I can support with hard core solid empirical evidence.

We could stand around all day and jerk each other off with theories and argue, but it isn't going to change anything. However if you can have an intellectually honest debate with your opponent, on their own terms, they might actually fucking listen for a second instead of calling you a nut or a normie or whatever stupid shit people use to conveniently end their thought process.

[Astargath]

Have you ever heard of the Dunning kruger effect, TECSHARE?

Hard facts eh? How do you know what a hard fact is? If I present any statistical evidence about vaccines doing what they are supposed to do, you nutjobs will just say the same old, ''it's fake'' ''it's a hoax'' ''those statistics are made up by the government''

Hard facts lmao.

[tvbcof]

Have you ever heard of the Dunning kruger effect, TECSHARE?
...

Who hasn't, dipshit.

And just FYI, grampy TS, I'm over 50.

[BADecker]

Have you ever heard of the Dunning kruger effect, TECSHARE?

Hard facts eh? How do you know what a hard fact is? If I present any statistical evidence about vaccines doing what they are supposed to do, you nutjobs will just say the same old, ''it's fake'' ''it's a hoax'' ''those statistics are made up by the government''

Hard facts lmao.

Everybody know that a hard fact to you is something that can't really be proven, because there might be something on the other side of the universe that proves it to be wrong.

[TECSHARE]

Have you ever heard of the Dunning kruger effect, TECSHARE?

Hard facts eh? How do you know what a hard fact is? If I present any statistical evidence about vaccines doing what they are supposed to do, you nutjobs will just say the same old, ''it's fake'' ''it's a hoax'' ''those statistics are made up by the government''

Hard facts lmao.

Oh please do go back into my statements in this thread and quote EXACTLY anything I stated that is not a hard fact. I will wait. All your horse shit that you are attributing to me, that I never said does not count.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning kruger effect, TECSHARE?
...

Who hasn't, dipshit.

And just FYI, grampy TS, I'm over 50.

Adult diapers count as short pants too...