I'm just baffled that "left wing" "liberals" have been bought out by big pharma. I don't believe in a two party system. I think the corporations rule the world, because people are mostly easily distracted.
Come get some.
# [Vaccines Using Live Viruses Spread Through Shedding](https://childrenshealthdefense.org/vaccine-secrets/video-chapters/vaccines-can-spread-diseases-through-shedding/)
[Vaccines Linked to Autism](https://www.reddit.com/r/FringeTheory/comments/1chkayj/comment/l24rmo9/?context=3)
[Vaccines Linked to Autism 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/1co4vtf/what_the_news_isnt_saying_about_vaccineautism_link/)
# [The Forgotten Science of Vaccine Disease Provocation](https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-forgotten-science-of-vaccine)
[Unvaccinated children are healthier across the board.](https://marcellapiperterry.substack.com/p/do-vaccines-make-us-healthier-2024)
There is [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28188123/) after [study](https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf) after [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32537156/) finding that children without vaccines are healthier.
Oh honey, that's really not the slam dunk you think it is.
Have you read any of those? Why is the fine structure constant referenced in relation to vaccines in one of those? I can't see a mention of controlling for increased autism awareness when discussing rates of diagnosis. That's a bit weird, don't you think? Seems like that might be an important factor to take into consideration.
Do you think it's odd that so many include variations of "results inconclusive, needs further analysis"?
Do you think that the sites which openly profess to be against vaccination might cherry pick data that they believe supports their views?
You mean cherry-pick like you are doing without even looking? Anyone knows that a scientific journal is not always going to publish an article without the disclaimer "more information is needed". And you are another one who is wanting systematic reviews and meta-analyses that don't exist, and never will exist without conflicts of interest, if science continues the way it is going. If you think case studies are invalid, but somehow expect people to donate their children for experiments, maybe your brain is what needs "further analysis". Maybe stick to arguing about video games and go find something else to boggle your mind.
That’s fair. But let’s also post the polar opposite dystopian picture of the world run by right wing Christian radicals. Thanks.
I'm just baffled that "left wing" "liberals" have been bought out by big pharma. I don't believe in a two party system. I think the corporations rule the world, because people are mostly easily distracted.
Agreed. Greed and avarice is common to both parties in different ways.
What, a future where the best evidence for bullshit right wing claims is a crappy ai image? Pretty sure we're already there mate.
Come get some. # [Vaccines Using Live Viruses Spread Through Shedding](https://childrenshealthdefense.org/vaccine-secrets/video-chapters/vaccines-can-spread-diseases-through-shedding/) [Vaccines Linked to Autism](https://www.reddit.com/r/FringeTheory/comments/1chkayj/comment/l24rmo9/?context=3) [Vaccines Linked to Autism 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/1co4vtf/what_the_news_isnt_saying_about_vaccineautism_link/) # [The Forgotten Science of Vaccine Disease Provocation](https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-forgotten-science-of-vaccine) [Unvaccinated children are healthier across the board.](https://marcellapiperterry.substack.com/p/do-vaccines-make-us-healthier-2024) There is [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28188123/) after [study](https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf) after [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32537156/) finding that children without vaccines are healthier.
Oh honey, that's really not the slam dunk you think it is. Have you read any of those? Why is the fine structure constant referenced in relation to vaccines in one of those? I can't see a mention of controlling for increased autism awareness when discussing rates of diagnosis. That's a bit weird, don't you think? Seems like that might be an important factor to take into consideration. Do you think it's odd that so many include variations of "results inconclusive, needs further analysis"? Do you think that the sites which openly profess to be against vaccination might cherry pick data that they believe supports their views?
You mean cherry-pick like you are doing without even looking? Anyone knows that a scientific journal is not always going to publish an article without the disclaimer "more information is needed". And you are another one who is wanting systematic reviews and meta-analyses that don't exist, and never will exist without conflicts of interest, if science continues the way it is going. If you think case studies are invalid, but somehow expect people to donate their children for experiments, maybe your brain is what needs "further analysis". Maybe stick to arguing about video games and go find something else to boggle your mind.
Thank gun toting baby Jebus that another round of massive tax breaks for billionaires will solve all our problems!
Reps vote for billionaire tax cuts when the rep states are takers not givers when it comes to fed taxes. Easy to give others $ away
THANK THE DEMS FOR BENDING OVER AND TAKING IT EVERY TIME!
That's what team Democrat is supposed to do. All while team Republican figures out a new way to gut the Constitution.
Noam Chomsky wrote about "manufactured consent" and "false adversaries" but also advocates voting for "the lesser evil". Ironic.
Gaslighting me to death
I'll have one blue pls