Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker?

[tvbcof]

...

''Yes, vaccines are working very well to get the victim 'configured', but there is always room for fine-tuning. '' Prove it, you guys can't even agree with each other. Some of you say vaccines are there to kill us long term, some of you are saying they simply don't work, etc etc, just conspiracy theories, which one is it?

It's simply the hypothesis which best explains the breadth of the observations.  Matches what 'they' said they were going to do with vaccines (use 'injections' at an early age to produce the kinds of people with the kinds of attitudes which are desirable to the leadership.)  It matches the observations that the regulatory agencies are not doing shit and the revolving door between 'government' regulators and pharma corporation's executive staff.  It matches how the 'science' about vaccine safety is non-existent and in it's place are bogus platitudes which don't stand to even the most modest of scrutiny.  In short it matches exactly what we see all around us in society.

The counter argument from people like you is that vaccines are good because the government says they are good and they stop anyone who says otherwise so there is no 'credible' evidence to the contrary.  And we all know how much Big Brother loves us so anything he says is the word of gospel with no further evidence required, right?

There is no reason for me to agree with 'the others' or them with me.  I call it like I see it.  I'm not the kind of person who needs to join a crowd, much less a majority, in order to feel secure.  Somehow my conditioning and my 'configuration' didn't work quite right.  Thank you God!

I agree with BadDecker on quite a lot on this thread.  I especially got a kick out of his observation that our government is more than happy to kill Yemeni kids by the busload but somehow when a kid happens to be standing on American soil they lose all of their psychopathic tendencies and bend over backward to protect every hair on the kid's head.  Why on earth would you believe that?  You would have to be completely brainwashed to actually believe such a nonsensical thing.

[1713581632]

1713581632

[1713581632]

1713581632

[1713581632]

1713581632

[BADecker]

Here’s PROOF that it’s actually vaccinated people who are spreading communicable disease – watch at Brighteon.com.

A 2016 report by Kaiser Health News revealed what many vaccine truth advocates have been saying for years: Vaccines and the people who get them are carriers and spreaders of the disease, putting the rest of the population at very high risk.

During a recent episode of The Alex Jones Show, available for viewing at Brighteon.com, Alex Jones and Rob Dew discuss how getting vaccinated not only increases the risk of diseases spreading, but also puts the person being vaccinated at high risk of suffering side effects and other complications.

“This is a CDC document, and it’s called ‘Possible Side-effects from Vaccines,’ and you can go look this up for yourself,” Dew explains during the opening segment, pointing to official government documents that reveal some very inconvenient truths.

“In the MMR section, under the ‘Severe problems (very rare)’ (section) it lists deafness, long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, or permanent brain damage. So even on the CDC website, it lists as a side effect of the MMR vaccine … permanent brain damage. So we’re not making this up.”

...

The horrific vaccine side effects that the establishment denies are printed right in vaccine package inserts

...

Major mumps outbreak occurred in child population that was 90 percent vaccinated

...

There are links in this article that back it up... PLUS a video that has a lot more info.

[Astargath]

...

''Yes, vaccines are working very well to get the victim 'configured', but there is always room for fine-tuning. '' Prove it, you guys can't even agree with each other. Some of you say vaccines are there to kill us long term, some of you are saying they simply don't work, etc etc, just conspiracy theories, which one is it?

It's simply the hypothesis which best explains the breadth of the observations.  Matches what 'they' said they were going to do with vaccines (use 'injections' at an early age to produce the kinds of people with the kinds of attitudes which are desirable to the leadership.)  It matches the observations that the regulatory agencies are not doing shit and the revolving door between 'government' regulators and pharma corporation's executive staff.  It matches how the 'science' about vaccine safety is non-existent and in it's place are bogus platitudes which don't stand to even the most modest of scrutiny.  In short it matches exactly what we see all around us in society.

The counter argument from people like you is that vaccines are good because the government says they are good and they stop anyone who says otherwise so there is no 'credible' evidence to the contrary.  And we all know how much Big Brother loves us so anything he says is the word of gospel with no further evidence required, right?

There is no reason for me to agree with 'the others' or them with me.  I call it like I see it.  I'm not the kind of person who needs to join a crowd, much less a majority, in order to feel secure.  Somehow my conditioning and my 'configuration' didn't work quite right.  Thank you God!

I agree with BadDecker on quite a lot on this thread.  I especially got a kick out of his observation that our government is more than happy to kill Yemeni kids by the busload but somehow when a kid happens to be standing on American soil they lose all of their psychopathic tendencies and bend over backward to protect every hair on the kid's head.  Why on earth would you believe that?  You would have to be completely brainwashed to actually believe such a nonsensical thing.

To me what best explains the observations is that vaccines work. Disease are at an all time low and every time vaccines were introduced those diseases were heavily affected by them. It's not just hygiene, clearly not. I don't know what you think the cause is, you can look at statistics of any disease that was treated with vaccines.

[tvbcof]

To me what best explains the observations is that vaccines work. Disease are at an all time low and every time vaccines were introduced those diseases were heavily affected by them. It's not just hygiene, clearly not. I don't know what you think the cause is, you can look at statistics of any disease that was treated with vaccines.

So the observation that the regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines that they were mandated to do is explained by the hypothesis that vaccines are safe?

To me a hypothesis that they are unsafe, but the authorities want to deploy them anyway (for some reason) and they simply did not do the studies or did the studies and hid the results is a hypothesis which fits the observations better.

It is an important principle in scientific exploration that when a source of information has proven unreliable in one instance, all information provided by that source is to be devalued.  This includes past and future information from the source.  In my opinion, the 'government certified' data about vaccines is in this category.  Very much so.  This is why you and I are at loggerheads about some of this stuff.

Unlike most of my skeptical peers here, I find it a compelling hypothesis that the social engineers currently in charge actually wish to damage ordinary citizens in certain ways, or are at best ambivalent about doing so if it helps achieve other objectives.   Examples:  building wealth, maintaining control, meeting certain population density targets, etc.

Unlike some of my other skeptical peers here, I 'believe in' the theory of evolution and can speak coherently with others who have proficiency in scientific exploration.  You can take that for what it's worth.

[Astargath]

To me what best explains the observations is that vaccines work. Disease are at an all time low and every time vaccines were introduced those diseases were heavily affected by them. It's not just hygiene, clearly not. I don't know what you think the cause is, you can look at statistics of any disease that was treated with vaccines.

So the observation that the regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines that they were mandated to do is explained by the hypothesis that vaccines are safe?

To me a hypothesis that they are unsafe, but the authorities want to deploy them anyway (for some reason) and they simply did not do the studies or did the studies and hid the results is a hypothesis which fits the observations better.

It is an important principle in scientific exploration that when a source of information has proven unreliable in one instance, all information provided by that source is to be devalued.  This includes past and future information from the source.  In my opinion, the 'government certified' data about vaccines is in this category.  Very much so.  This is why you and I are at loggerheads about some of this stuff.

Unlike most of my skeptical peers here, I find it a compelling hypothesis that the social engineers currently in charge actually wish to damage ordinary citizens in certain ways, or are at best ambivalent about doing so if it helps achieve other objectives.   Examples:  building wealth, maintaining control, meeting certain population density targets, etc.

Unlike some of my other skeptical peers here, I 'believe in' the theory of evolution and can speak coherently with others who have proficiency in scientific exploration.  You can take that for what it's worth.

''regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines'' This is simply not true. You guys keep talking about some missing reports when there are many many more reports about safety of vaccines.

''the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), established in 1987, has had regular meetings and published regular reports about vaccine safety''

''a number of other vaccine safety oversight advisory committees and government groups were established, including the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Review Advisory Committee (MIDRAC) of NIAID, and the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, with the Vaccine Interagency Group of the National Vaccine Program Office providing overall coordination. They all report to the Secretary of HHS''

And more and more and more but of course if there is only 1 instance of some reports missing somewhere, that's absolute proof vaccines are not safe. Give me a break.

[tvbcof]

So the observation that the regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines that they were mandated to do...
...

''regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines'' This is simply not true. You guys keep talking about some missing reports when there are many many more reports about safety of vaccines.

Most readers who are intelligent enough to actually matter can easily spot these ham-handed and simplistic methods of trying to 'win' an argument.  We've all seen them 1000 times, and often use them as a flag to make certain inferences.

You don't seem as interested in an intellectual analysis of some of the questions as you do simply and desperately promoting the corp/gov party line.  That in and of itself is an interesting observation.

[BADecker]

To me what best explains the observations is that vaccines work. Disease are at an all time low and every time vaccines were introduced those diseases were heavily affected by them. It's not just hygiene, clearly not. I don't know what you think the cause is, you can look at statistics of any disease that was treated with vaccines.

So the observation that the regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines that they were mandated to do is explained by the hypothesis that vaccines are safe?

To me a hypothesis that they are unsafe, but the authorities want to deploy them anyway (for some reason) and they simply did not do the studies or did the studies and hid the results is a hypothesis which fits the observations better.

It is an important principle in scientific exploration that when a source of information has proven unreliable in one instance, all information provided by that source is to be devalued.  This includes past and future information from the source.  In my opinion, the 'government certified' data about vaccines is in this category.  Very much so.  This is why you and I are at loggerheads about some of this stuff.

Unlike most of my skeptical peers here, I find it a compelling hypothesis that the social engineers currently in charge actually wish to damage ordinary citizens in certain ways, or are at best ambivalent about doing so if it helps achieve other objectives.   Examples:  building wealth, maintaining control, meeting certain population density targets, etc.

Unlike some of my other skeptical peers here, I 'believe in' the theory of evolution and can speak coherently with others who have proficiency in scientific exploration.  You can take that for what it's worth.

''regulatory agencies have not produced the reports about the safety of vaccines'' This is simply not true. You guys keep talking about some missing reports when there are many many more reports about safety of vaccines.

''the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), established in 1987, has had regular meetings and published regular reports about vaccine safety''

''a number of other vaccine safety oversight advisory committees and government groups were established, including the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Review Advisory Committee (MIDRAC) of NIAID, and the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, with the Vaccine Interagency Group of the National Vaccine Program Office providing overall coordination. They all report to the Secretary of HHS''

And more and more and more but of course if there is only 1 instance of some reports missing somewhere, that's absolute proof vaccines are not safe. Give me a break.

There are all kinds of reports with regard to vaccines. Some of the reports report on laws. Some report that the laws are being carried out. Let's see some of the reports on the actual vaccine testing that provides info that shows that they are safe. We don't want reports that say the tests show that vaccines are safe. We want the actual test reports that show how the tests were done, what they included, how many people were tested, the ways that they were tested, what their blood type was, etc., the real tests, themselves.

All you say is that some tests were done and there are reports. Show us one with the information of where we can go on the net to look at it. You know, a real test. Not just the report that on such and such a date a test was done.

[tvbcof]

There are all kinds of reports with regard to vaccines. Some of the reports report on laws. Some report that the laws are being carried out. Let's see some of the reports on the actual vaccine testing that provides info that shows that they are safe. We don't want reports that say the tests show that vaccines are safe. We want the actual test reports that show how the tests were done, what they included, how many people were tested, the ways that they were tested, what their blood type was, etc., the real tests, themselves.

All you say is that some tests were done and there are reports. Show us one with the information of where we can go on the net to look at it. You know, a real test. Not just the report that on such and such a date a test was done.

For those who don't know, the way to do a proper study is as follows:

 - Produce the 'protocols' before the study begins.  These are the details of exactly how the study will be performed.  Interested parties should negotiate and agree on the protocols and on the interpretations possible from the study.  One of the key elements of the protocols would be sample selection.

 - Perform the study adhering strictly to the protocols.  If for some reason the protocols cannot be adhered to, the study should terminate and start again from scratch.

The 'final word' from the CDC on the autism-vaccine connection came from a study performed many years ago.  The study is somewhat problematic from the get-go because it was designed and negotiated in-house without oversight.

Worse, the CDC modified the protocols when it turned out that there was a statistically relevant link between autism and young African American boys.  The 'trick' was to reduce the sample size in order to nullify the statistical interpretations possible.

Worse yet, the data was physically destroyed (but for a copy retained by a whistle-blower) and the results that were engineered became the basis for defending the vaccine programs in court.  That is, depriving relief to damaged victims, and allowing the vaccination programs to proceed (and indeed grow exponentially!)

In my humble opinion, any 'data' or 'studies' having anything to do with the CDC or any agency who is so corrupt has a value of almost zero when it comes to analysis of the issues.

[BADecker]

There are all kinds of reports with regard to vaccines. Some of the reports report on laws. Some report that the laws are being carried out. Let's see some of the reports on the actual vaccine testing that provides info that shows that they are safe. We don't want reports that say the tests show that vaccines are safe. We want the actual test reports that show how the tests were done, what they included, how many people were tested, the ways that they were tested, what their blood type was, etc., the real tests, themselves.

All you say is that some tests were done and there are reports. Show us one with the information of where we can go on the net to look at it. You know, a real test. Not just the report that on such and such a date a test was done.

For those who don't know, the way to do a proper study is as follows:

 - Produce the 'protocols' before the study begins.  These are the details of exactly how the study will be performed.  Interested parties should negotiate and agree on the protocols and on the interpretations possible from the study.  One of the key elements of the protocols would be sample selection.

 - Perform the study adhering strictly to the protocols.  If for some reason the protocols cannot be adhered to, the study should terminate and start again from scratch.

The 'final word' from the CDC on the autism-vaccine connection came from a study performed many years ago.  The study is somewhat problematic from the get-go because it was designed and negotiated in-house without oversight.

Worse, the CDC modified the protocols when it turned out that there was a statistically relevant link between autism and young African American boys.  The 'trick' was to reduce the sample size in order to nullify the statistical interpretations possible.

Worse yet, the data was physically destroyed (but for a copy retained by a whistle-blower) and the results that were engineered became the basis for defending the vaccine programs in court.  That is, depriving relief to damaged victims, and allowing the vaccination programs to proceed (and indeed grow exponentially!)

In my humble opinion, any 'data' or 'studies' having anything to do with the CDC or any agency who is so corrupt has a value of almost zero when it comes to analysis of the issues.

Thank you for this.

Kinda like back in 1977 or thereabouts, when the doctors in Orange County, CA, went on strike for a month, and there were 50% fewer deaths in Orange County that month.

[tvbcof]

...

Kinda like back in 1977 or thereabouts, when the doctors in Orange County, CA, went on strike for a month, and there were 50% fewer deaths in Orange County that month.

Lol!  Why am I not surprised?  Doesn't seem to be an isolated incident either:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/02/09/hoskins/QhjVuBHqnrjrT0wSeWRJII/story.html

From:  http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_3_Moral_Climate_of_Health_Care/Reading-Death-Rate-Doctor-Strike.htm

DOCTORS ON STRIKE

Whenever medical doctors go on strike, a most interesting phenomenon occurs - death rates go down! In 1976 in Bogota, Columbia medical doctors went on strike for 52 days, with only emergency care available. The death rate dropped by 35%. In 1976 in Los Angeles County a similar doctors' strike resulted in an 18% drop in mortality. As soon as the strike was over, the death rate went back to normal. A 50% decrease in mortality occurred in Israel in 1973 when there was a one month doctor's strike!

I'm sensing that Doctors are commonly admitted 'into the club' and are given certain protections as long as they are acting in the interest of the 'club owners.'  The minority who take an active interest in understanding the end goals and show zeal in the game-play are given seats on various boards (e.g., the boards who decide what to inject into the kiddies.)  The same is even more true of 'scientists'.

[coinexplorer1]

Goes over my head tbh why wouldn't you vaccine. Like you have all the vaccines for tick bites that can make you pretty much brain dead and why would I turn this down? Happened to my friend, luckily found out in the early stage that he has it and doesn't have much damage from the tick, but he's still not quite the same and I'm sure vaccine would have made a huge difference.

[tvbcof]

Goes over my head tbh why wouldn't you vaccine. Like you have all the vaccines for tick bites that can make you pretty much brain dead and why would I turn this down? Happened to my friend, luckily found out in the early stage that he has it and doesn't have much damage from the tick, but he's still not quite the same and I'm sure vaccine would have made a huge difference.

Ticks can carry a variety of problematic pathogens, but the main one at this time is Borrelia Burgdorferi (aka, Lyme disease.)

There was a vaccine developed and marketed for protection against this bacteria but it was removed from the market rather quickly because it had devastating health effects on a lot of people.  It was called 'LYMErix' if you wish to read about it.

The idea that ticks can be used to spread diseases to humans as a part of a biological warfare system dates back at least to the Nazi regime.  At least one of the top scientists working on such systems were given U.S. citizenship after the war and worked at Plumb Island Animal Disease Center'.  'Animal'.  Lol.  That facility is right across from Lyme, Connecticut of 'Lyme disease' fame just for what it's worth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Traub

The U.S. military, officers commissioned by said, and other employees hold various patents on a variety of microbes which have potential for use as biological warfare agents (often of the so-called non-lethal variety so they just make target populations chronically ill rather than kill them.)  Also delivery systems/methods.  The Rockefeller institute owns zika and many others though.  Same Rockefeller clan who got their start selling 'snake oil' cures and who were highly interested population control and in eugenics.  And who spent a lot of money funding medical schools as part of their 'philanthropy.'

[Astargath]

Goes over my head tbh why wouldn't you vaccine. Like you have all the vaccines for tick bites that can make you pretty much brain dead and why would I turn this down? Happened to my friend, luckily found out in the early stage that he has it and doesn't have much damage from the tick, but he's still not quite the same and I'm sure vaccine would have made a huge difference.

Ticks can carry a variety of problematic pathogens, but the main one at this time is Borrelia Burgdorferi (aka, Lyme disease.)

There was a vaccine developed and marketed for protection against this bacteria but it was removed from the market rather quickly because it had devastating health effects on a lot of people.  It was called 'LYMErix' if you wish to read about it.

The idea that ticks can be used to spread diseases to humans as a part of a biological warfare system dates back at least to the Nazi regime.  At least one of the top scientists working on such systems were given U.S. citizenship after the war and worked at Plumb Island Animal Disease Center'.  'Animal'.  Lol.  That facility is right across from Lyme, Connecticut of 'Lyme disease' fame just for what it's worth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Traub

The U.S. military, officers commissioned by said, and other employees hold various patents on a variety of microbes which have potential for use as biological warfare agents (often of the so-called non-lethal variety so they just make target populations chronically ill rather than kill them.)  Also delivery systems/methods.  The Rockefeller institute owns zika and many others though.  Same Rockefeller clan who got their start selling 'snake oil' cures and who were highly interested population control and in eugenics.  And who spent a lot of money funding medical schools as part of their 'philanthropy.'

'In the aftermath of the LYMErix™ market withdrawal, we must look for lessons learned. The vaccine developers believed they developed a safe and effective vaccine to prevent the most common tick-borne infection in the United States. Even available post-market surveillance failed to demonstrate convincing harm from the LYMErix™ vaccine. After review of available data, the FDA found insufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between the reported adverse effects and the vaccine and continued to permit use of the vaccine. '

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/

Vaccines work. Some vaccines have side effects, it happens, we are humans. Vaccines are not 100% safe but are extremely effective, specially against deadly diseases.

[tvbcof]

'In the aftermath of the LYMErix™ market withdrawal, we must look for lessons learned. The vaccine developers believed they developed a safe and effective vaccine to prevent the most common tick-borne infection in the United States. Even available post-market surveillance failed to demonstrate convincing harm from the LYMErix™ vaccine. After review of available data, the FDA found insufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between the reported adverse effects and the vaccine and continued to permit use of the vaccine. '

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/

Vaccines work. Some vaccines have side effects, it happens, we are humans. Vaccines are not 100% safe but are extremely effective, specially against deadly diseases.

Then why are there still 'deadly diseases'?  A possible answer is that vaccines are nearly 100% snake oil and they rely on the fact that something which used to take out 1/100,000 people in the 1800's is now re-written in the history books as a 'deadly disease' which was 'cured' by vaccines.  They are not developed for genuine threats because it would be to hard to fake a victory for something which people actually remember.

LYMErix was one of the vaccines which didn't work for shit.  Even after three injections it was only '76 to 92 percent effective.'  That strikes me as fairly wide error bars, but anyway...  Vaccines have an especially hard time against bacteria (as opposed to viruses) which is why Pertussis (whooping cough) is another vaccine which is in or past failure mode.  That's why outbreaks happen among highly vaccinated populations.

A major pharma company could inject pure AIDS into people and call it a 'vaccine' and the FDA would give it the 'safe and effective' blessing.  These bureaucrats are hungry for the big pay-day on the other side of the revolving door.

[Astargath]

'In the aftermath of the LYMErix™ market withdrawal, we must look for lessons learned. The vaccine developers believed they developed a safe and effective vaccine to prevent the most common tick-borne infection in the United States. Even available post-market surveillance failed to demonstrate convincing harm from the LYMErix™ vaccine. After review of available data, the FDA found insufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between the reported adverse effects and the vaccine and continued to permit use of the vaccine. '

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/

Vaccines work. Some vaccines have side effects, it happens, we are humans. Vaccines are not 100% safe but are extremely effective, specially against deadly diseases.

Then why are there still 'deadly diseases'?  A possible answer is that vaccines are nearly 100% snake oil and they rely on the fact that something which used to take out 1/100,000 people in the 1800's is now re-written in the history books as a 'deadly disease' which was 'cured' by vaccines.  They are not developed for genuine threats because it would be to hard to fake a victory for something which people actually remember.

LYMErix was one of the vaccines which didn't work for shit.  Even after three injections it was only '76 to 92 percent effective.'  That strikes me as fairly wide error bars, but anyway...  Vaccines have an especially hard time against bacteria (as opposed to viruses) which is why Pertussis (whooping cough) is another vaccine which is in or past failure mode.  That's why outbreaks happen among highly vaccinated populations.

A major pharma company could inject pure AIDS into people and call it a 'vaccine' and the FDA would give it the 'safe and effective' blessing.  These bureaucrats are hungry for the big pay-day on the other side of the revolving door.

The problem with you is you are talking out of your ass:

''A possible answer is that vaccines are nearly 100% snake oil and they rely on the fact that something which used to take out 1/100,000 people in the 1800's is now re-written in the history books as a 'deadly disease' which was 'cured' by vaccines.  They are not developed for genuine threats because it would be to hard to fake a victory for something which people actually remember.'' Where is the evidence.

''LYMErix was one of the vaccines which didn't work for shit'' If it's 76%+ effective, I would say it works very well.

''Vaccines have an especially hard time against bacteria'' So what? I didn't say vaccines are the cure to everything, I just said they are highly effective, a 76% success rate is highly effective.

''A major pharma company could inject pure AIDS into people and call it a 'vaccine' and the FDA would give it the 'safe and effective' blessing.  These bureaucrats are hungry for the big pay-day on the other side of the revolving door.'' Again, you would have to prove that.


Lymerix worked. Even after it was taken down and more tests/studies were performed, the consensus was still the same, the Lymerix vaccine was safe. Do you accept this or not? If not you are just a lying, dishonest person.

[tvbcof]

...

Lymerix worked. Even after it was taken down and more tests/studies were performed, the consensus was still the same, the Lymerix vaccine was safe. Do you accept this or not? If not you are just a lying, dishonest person.

I don't accept that, and I doubt that the people who were maimed and sued for damages do either.

At least Lyme disease is a serious thing and possibly worth the risk of the vaccine damage in certain corner-case scenarios.  Unlike chicken-pox or mumps where they maim kids for dollars for no good reason at all.  They also deprive people of just getting the mild illness, getting it over with, and having life-long immunity as is the case with me (a 51 year old with zero medical problems who has not needed to see a doctor in years...and even then I didn't have a pressing need since I could easily have treated myself.)

The only time I've seen a doctor in the last 5 years is to get antibiotics after getting tick bites which made me actually ill...when I don't get ill from a tick bite I don't worry about it.  The proper antibiotics are cheap and easy to get without a prescription if one knows where to look, but I went in anyway because I enjoy chatting with the doctor.  She's actually pretty cool and is no fan of our totally broken public-ish 'health care' system either.

[Astargath]

...

Lymerix worked. Even after it was taken down and more tests/studies were performed, the consensus was still the same, the Lymerix vaccine was safe. Do you accept this or not? If not you are just a lying, dishonest person.

I don't accept that, and I doubt that the people who were maimed and sued for damages do either.

At least Lyme disease is a serious thing and possibly worth the risk of the vaccine damage in certain corner-case scenarios.  Unlike chicken-pox or mumps where they maim kids for dollars for no good reason at all.  They also deprive people of just getting the mild illness, getting it over with, and having life-long immunity as is the case with me (a 51 year old with zero medical problems who has not needed to see a doctor in years...and even then I didn't have a pressing need since I could easily have treated myself.)

The only time I've seen a doctor in the last 5 years is to get antibiotics after getting tick bites which made me actually ill...when I don't get ill from a tick bite I don't worry about it.  The proper antibiotics are cheap and easy to get without a prescription if one knows where to look, but I went in anyway because I enjoy chatting with the doctor.  She's actually pretty cool and is no fan of our totally broken public-ish 'health care' system either.

Then that's it for me, I'm putting you on ignore, I don't like intellectual dishonesty, you clearly are not going to agree with anything even when evidence is presented and you will simply keep saying the same things, oh but this government agency faked the results or they don't care, etc etc. Cya.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'm not going to get involved in this debate, because anti-vaxxers are as insane as the flat earthers. There is literally no point arguing - they won't accept the evidence because they don't understand what is and is not evidence. Facebook moms "doing their research" are somehow equivalent to hundreds of years of global scientific advancement in their eyes.

I only wanted to comment on this, because this is a whole new level of stupid:

...

Kinda like back in 1977 or thereabouts, when the doctors in Orange County, CA, went on strike for a month, and there were 50% fewer deaths in Orange County that month.

Lol!  Why am I not surprised?  Doesn't seem to be an isolated incident either:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/02/09/hoskins/QhjVuBHqnrjrT0wSeWRJII/story.html

From:  http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_3_Moral_Climate_of_Health_Care/Reading-Death-Rate-Doctor-Strike.htm

DOCTORS ON STRIKE

Whenever medical doctors go on strike, a most interesting phenomenon occurs - death rates go down! In 1976 in Bogota, Columbia medical doctors went on strike for 52 days, with only emergency care available. The death rate dropped by 35%. In 1976 in Los Angeles County a similar doctors' strike resulted in an 18% drop in mortality. As soon as the strike was over, the death rate went back to normal. A 50% decrease in mortality occurred in Israel in 1973 when there was a one month doctor's strike!

I'm sensing that Doctors are commonly admitted 'into the club' and are given certain protections as long as they are acting in the interest of the 'club owners.'  The minority who take an active interest in understanding the end goals and show zeal in the game-play are given seats on various boards (e.g., the boards who decide what to inject into the kiddies.)  The same is even more true of 'scientists'.

A significant proportion of deaths are as a result of complications of surgery. Every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a risk of death with it. If doctors strike, all non-emergency operations are cancelled, and that risk of death disappears. Failure to understand this completely basic fact is just more proof that you have literally zero idea how healthcare works.

Also, I am a doctor, and I confirm I am "in the club". I only get the real vaccines made from unicorn tears.

[Astargath]

I'm not going to get involved in this debate, because anti-vaxxers are as insane as the flat earthers. There is literally no point arguing - they won't accept the evidence because they don't understand what is and is not evidence. Facebook moms "doing their research" are somehow equivalent to hundreds of years of global scientific advancement in their eyes.

I only wanted to comment on this, because this is a whole new level of stupid:

...

Kinda like back in 1977 or thereabouts, when the doctors in Orange County, CA, went on strike for a month, and there were 50% fewer deaths in Orange County that month.

Lol!  Why am I not surprised?  Doesn't seem to be an isolated incident either:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/02/09/hoskins/QhjVuBHqnrjrT0wSeWRJII/story.html

From:  http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_3_Moral_Climate_of_Health_Care/Reading-Death-Rate-Doctor-Strike.htm

DOCTORS ON STRIKE

Whenever medical doctors go on strike, a most interesting phenomenon occurs - death rates go down! In 1976 in Bogota, Columbia medical doctors went on strike for 52 days, with only emergency care available. The death rate dropped by 35%. In 1976 in Los Angeles County a similar doctors' strike resulted in an 18% drop in mortality. As soon as the strike was over, the death rate went back to normal. A 50% decrease in mortality occurred in Israel in 1973 when there was a one month doctor's strike!

I'm sensing that Doctors are commonly admitted 'into the club' and are given certain protections as long as they are acting in the interest of the 'club owners.'  The minority who take an active interest in understanding the end goals and show zeal in the game-play are given seats on various boards (e.g., the boards who decide what to inject into the kiddies.)  The same is even more true of 'scientists'.

A significant proportion of deaths are as a result of complications of surgery. Every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a risk of death with it. If doctors strike, all non-emergency operations are cancelled, and that risk of death disappears. Failure to understand this completely basic fact is just more proof that you have literally zero idea how healthcare works.

Also, I am a doctor, and I confirm I am "in the club". I only get the real vaccines made from unicorn tears.

You are clearly paid by the jews. Hahahaha I didn't even see that. This guy is no different than flat earthers, you are right.

[BADecker]

I'm not going to get involved in this debate, because anti-vaxxers are as insane as the flat earthers. There is literally no point arguing - they won't accept the evidence because they don't understand what is and is not evidence. Facebook moms "doing their research" are somehow equivalent to hundreds of years of global scientific advancement in their eyes.

I only wanted to comment on this, because this is a whole new level of stupid:

...

Kinda like back in 1977 or thereabouts, when the doctors in Orange County, CA, went on strike for a month, and there were 50% fewer deaths in Orange County that month.

Lol!  Why am I not surprised?  Doesn't seem to be an isolated incident either:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/02/09/hoskins/QhjVuBHqnrjrT0wSeWRJII/story.html

From:  http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_3_Moral_Climate_of_Health_Care/Reading-Death-Rate-Doctor-Strike.htm

DOCTORS ON STRIKE

Whenever medical doctors go on strike, a most interesting phenomenon occurs - death rates go down! In 1976 in Bogota, Columbia medical doctors went on strike for 52 days, with only emergency care available. The death rate dropped by 35%. In 1976 in Los Angeles County a similar doctors' strike resulted in an 18% drop in mortality. As soon as the strike was over, the death rate went back to normal. A 50% decrease in mortality occurred in Israel in 1973 when there was a one month doctor's strike!

I'm sensing that Doctors are commonly admitted 'into the club' and are given certain protections as long as they are acting in the interest of the 'club owners.'  The minority who take an active interest in understanding the end goals and show zeal in the game-play are given seats on various boards (e.g., the boards who decide what to inject into the kiddies.)  The same is even more true of 'scientists'.

A significant proportion of deaths are as a result of complications of surgery. Every surgery, no matter how minor, carries a risk of death with it. If doctors strike, all non-emergency operations are cancelled, and that risk of death disappears. Failure to understand this completely basic fact is just more proof that you have literally zero idea how healthcare works.

Also, I am a doctor, and I confirm I am "in the club". I only get the real vaccines made from unicorn tears.

Risk of death is not the same as death. The reports that tvbcof shows don't have anything to do with risk of death. They have to do with death.

Also, now that we know where you get your vaccines from, no wonder there is death from doctors.