Social Despite Overwhelming Evidence Vaccines Safe & Effective, "Hysteresis" Endures

The significance is that face-to-face interaction with a physically limited local group within a greater culture is more socially grounding, and less often results in the crazy person being socially rewarded for crazy beliefs. But as we increasingly virtualize our social groups, those people find social rewards easily by searching out crazy groups with almost no effort. The normal group can't apply any social pressure to the crazy person once he's free to roam the Internet.

My mistake was in thinking that people would generally prefer physical interaction (that seeing, hearing, feeling people in person was greatly preferable to our senses), like in the early MySpace days, when it was commonly understood to be kind of a harmless joke and it didn't seem like it was threatening our entire social order. But the truth is that people can lead socially fulfilling lives online now (with some nasty side effects but the system works). And if that's true, that virtual relationships are fulfilling enough, then there is no chance that the crazies can be kept in the fold.

Ahhh, interesting and well put.
 
Take Yellow Fever vaccine, one death for every 500K, seems reasonable risk considering how deadly Yellow Fever is but if I had the choice to not travel where they have Yellow fever your are better off not taking the vaccine.

Its a very thin line and a though call to make, just assuming there are zero risks with vaccines is not realistic and sometimes trying to pass that impression is just as bad as antivax.

Despite the overwhelming evidence and stats proving vaccines are better to have than avoid, its sadly true in some rare cases kids have some unexplained reaction to the vaccine and it fucks them.

My wifes friend has a kid that is autistic, she has a wierd Seizure hours after the vaccine and was changed from this day onwards. Anyone claiming it wasn't the vaccine that affected the kid is ignorant. You don't go from a normal 3.5 year old with no issues to what she is now a few hours after the doctor puts the needle in for nothing. It fucked her up.

Fyi, I have 2 kids 3 and 2. Both vaccinated.
 
Last edited:
BOTH CAN BE AND ARE TRUE.

And this is where you keep failing. You imply I said something contrary to this, and I clearly didn't. I told you to quote me saying this and you clearly can't. I posted a cat meme on a karate forum that sized you up to a T (lol, a cat meme, you're that simple) and you can't handle it, and now I'm apparently living rent free in your head. And it's a goddamn mess in there.

Again I am waiting for you to show me anywhere I said anything anti Vax, and pointing out that I stated the proift motive exists for Big Pharma is not proof of being anti vax.

LOL
@MikeMcMann: Point out the Antivax position I held!
*exact Antivax position is pointed out*
@MikeMcMann: Oh shit, uh....THAT DOESNT COUNT!!!

Jesus Christ, you can't make this shit up.

I would encourage you to tuck dick and quit before you fall even farther behind, but you clearly won't. You have my pity.
 
FTR I’m pro vaccine and all of my children receive the full cycle of shots. That said, the one time I took a flu shot I had a reaction and spent the next 14 hours vomiting/heaving uncontrollably. Was the craziest experience of my life as whole abdomen was essentially in near constant spasm all through the night.

When I told the doctor who recommended the shot she replied with the most transparent and obvious lie I’ve ever encountered - insisting that she’d never heard of anything like that ever happening. In fact my reaction is a well documented side affect. Not only was her claim entirely non-credible just based the vaccines own warnings, the lie was weirdly written all over her face - like a kid who’d been caught in the cookie jar.

The dishonesty of medical professionals in matters like this does nothing to encourage any confidence on the part of skeptics.
 
You should only take vaccines when your immune system is in perfect shape, most of the vaccines are not recommended for newborn or people too old for that reason. And doctors don´t give a shit if you have a bad reacting to the flushot.

FTR I’m pro vaccine and all of my children receive the full cycle of shots. That said, the one time I took a flu shot I had a reaction and spent the next 14 hours vomiting/heaving uncontrollably. Was the craziest experience of my life as whole abdomen was essentially in near constant spasm all through the night.

When I told the doctor who recommended the shot she replied with the most transparent and obvious lie I’ve ever encountered - insisting that she’d never heard of anything like that ever happening. In fact my reaction is a well documented side affect. Not only was her claim entirely non-credible just based the vaccines own warnings, the lie was weirdly written all over her face - like a kid who’d been caught in the cookie jar.

The dishonesty of medical professionals in matters like this does nothing to encourage any confidence on the part of skeptics.
 
You should only take vaccines when your immune system is in perfect shape, most of the vaccines are not recommended for newborn or people too old for that reason. And doctors don´t give a shit if you have a bad reacting to the flushot.


I definitely get that the doctors don’t give a shit about my reaction. What I don’t get is why they think that’s a good strategy to maximize public health.

In my case the shot was recommended by my asthmatic toddler’s (at the time) pediatrician who rightly thought it extremely important not expose him to the flu. I was perfectly on board with her intent and when I asked about the reacion it was in the spirit of understanding what happened and if there was a way to avoid the reaction in future years. Her glib denial of the situation (and I’ve encountered similar answers from other docs) has meant that I’ve had to avoid the shot since. I’ve read that different shots are formulated differently and that there may be options however I can’t find a doctor who even seems willing to entertain that this is an issue to be navigated.
 
Big Pharma paid for all sorts of research to substantiate that view and then lobbied the gov't and got the change.

I have no personal view on the science and no reason to not believe it. Many doctors however did not like it and particularly that they could lose their licenses if they did not recommend patients get on these drugs.

This is all CT stuff.

And lol @ you can’t find the CT YouTube video with all the proof. Cracks me up.
 
And this is where you keep failing. You imply I said something contrary to this, and I clearly didn't. I told you to quote me saying this and you clearly can't. I posted a cat meme on a karate forum that sized you up to a T (lol, a cat meme, you're that simple) and you can't handle it, and now I'm apparently living rent free in your head. And it's a goddamn mess in there.



LOL
@MikeMcMann: Point out the Antivax position I held!
*exact Antivax position is pointed out*
@MikeMcMann: Oh shit, uh....THAT DOESNT COUNT!!!

Jesus Christ, you can't make this shit up.

I would encourage you to tuck dick and quit before you fall even farther behind, but you clearly won't. You have my pity.
Lol. My position from my viery sentence in my very first post:

MikeMcMann : Vax work and I think they are necessary
MikeMcMann : Separately I think in general we must always be weary of the Profit Motive within big Pharma

Kalitaur : if you question the profit motive you are by default anti Vax
Kalitaur : but prove I don't question the profit motive

LOL, Jesus Christ you cannot make this stuff up.

Why don't you just admit you reacted to me without really understanding my position even now as you try to say you agree with my position (that we need to also understand the profit motive and how it impacts Big Pharma).
 
This is all CT stuff.

And lol @ you can’t find the CT YouTube video with all the proof. Cracks me up.
Sad that so many like you are so ill informed.

There is nothing CT in stating that big Pharma pays for all sorts of research and that they have a bias towards 'medicating' over not.

It is an issue that is not even denied in Academic, GOv't or Research circles as I posted above and again here.


DIVORCING PROFIT MOTIVATION FROM NEW DRUG RESEARCH: A CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE THE FDA WITH RELIABLE TEST DATA*
 
I definitely get that the doctors don’t give a shit about my reaction. What I don’t get is why they think that’s a good strategy to maximize public health.

In my case the shot was recommended by my asthmatic toddler’s (at the time) pediatrician who rightly thought it extremely important not expose him to the flu. I was perfectly on board with her intent and when I asked about the reacion it was in the spirit of understanding what happened and if there was a way to avoid the reaction in future years. Her glib denial of the situation (and I’ve encountered similar answers from other docs) has meant that I’ve had to avoid the shot since. I’ve read that different shots are formulated differently and that there may be options however I can’t find a doctor who even seems willing to entertain that this is an issue to be navigated.

The water is murk, the side effects are extensive and some doctors seems to not believe their patients complains and chalk it up to placebo, but their reaction is exactly what you described as if they have never seen it before, they pretend surprise and so forth. Both my daughters have all their vaccines but I always worry when they have a shot schedule and I try to see if they are in good health when going in for them. Avoiding the reaction to the flu shot is a gamble
 
I’d strongly recommend people skim through any book by Dr. John Sarnos. I had no idea how much of our medicine was based on the placebo effect. One reason why new drugs keep getting pumped out is because the placebo effect needs “newness/hope” for it to be effective in the mind of patients. But ultimately the healing agent is internal to you. This is not to say all medical treatments are skewed this way, but there is a massive veil of deceit on the entire industry.
 
I definitely get that the doctors don’t give a shit about my reaction. What I don’t get is why they think that’s a good strategy to maximize public health.

In my case the shot was recommended by my asthmatic toddler’s (at the time) pediatrician who rightly thought it extremely important not expose him to the flu. I was perfectly on board with her intent and when I asked about the reacion it was in the spirit of understanding what happened and if there was a way to avoid the reaction in future years. Her glib denial of the situation (and I’ve encountered similar answers from other docs) has meant that I’ve had to avoid the shot since. I’ve read that different shots are formulated differently and that there may be options however I can’t find a doctor who even seems willing to entertain that this is an issue to be navigated.
this is a huge issue. My daughter was at fault basically when it came to the H1N1 shot. Dr. was in denial that she should even be sick, and assured it was safe. It WAS safe, to everyone that DIDNT get the shot, one of the primary upsides of that particular shot. My understanding is that it was engineered that way to prevent further outbreak.

other allergic reactions happened to my daughter from normal vaccines like MMR.

so when it comes to the counter argument not having enough facts, I'm assuming it's fake narrative news. When docs dont give the time of day for allergic reactions or adverse effects, then we are doomed to ignorance. Having my 80 year old grandfather get the flu shot was totally inexcusable. Changing a grown man's diapers........ he would have been better off dead. Lost a lot of his ability as a human after that incident, lost complete recognition of people, basically brain dead.
 
Mic is butthurt. He apparently edited the title to the other thread where just days ago we learned that the government's own vaccine guru has come clean. He made public his sworn affidavit. He told the government years ago, that yes, in at least a subset of children, vaccines turned perfectly healthy children into autistic ones.

The idea that vaccines are safe and effective as implied in this thread's title has NEVER been settled.

Here is what we know now:
...we have remarkable new information: a respected pro-vaccine medical expert used by the federal government to debunk the vaccine-autism link, says vaccines can cause autism after all. He claims he told that to government officials long ago, but they kept it secret....

In 2007, Yates’ case and nearly all the other vaccine autism claims lost. The decision was based largely on the expert opinion of this man, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a world-renowned pediatric neurologist shown here at a lecture.

Dr. Zimmerman was the government’s top expert witness and had testified that vaccines didn’t cause autism. The debate was declared over.

But now Dr. Zimmerman has provided remarkable new information. He claims that during the vaccine hearings all those years ago, he privately told government lawyers that vaccines can, and did cause autism in some children. That turnabout from the government’s own chief medical expert stood to change everything about the vaccine-autism debate. If the public were to find out...

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-vaccination-debate

I recommend everyone save this one to your hard drives... especially those who rely on the "someone would spill the beans" excuse when discussing how conspiracies do not/can not exist.
oh god, not this again, read up more on this story please, you sound ignorant.
 
LOL, yup.

Anyone on the fence or with an open mind should watch this short vid. It comes from the University of Calgary's Dept. of Physiology and Biophysics' faculty of Medicine.

Cliffs: We have known for some time.


mercury is no longer in children's vaccines yet the autism rate has continued to increase. herp da derp
 
Sad that so many like you are so ill informed.

There is nothing CT in stating that big Pharma pays for all sorts of research and that they have a bias towards 'medicating' over not.

It is an issue that is not even denied in Academic, GOv't or Research circles as I posted above and again here.


DIVORCING PROFIT MOTIVATION FROM NEW DRUG RESEARCH: A CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE THE FDA WITH RELIABLE TEST DATA*
I’m not going to read a 30 page document from 1978.

You said blood pressure standards were recently changed because Big Pharma got involved to make more money and that doctors will lose their licenses if they do not comply and prescribe more drugs. All this is nonsense.
 
this is a huge issue. My daughter was at fault basically when it came to the H1N1 shot. Dr. was in denial that she should even be sick, and assured it was safe. It WAS safe, to everyone that DIDNT get the shot, one of the primary upsides of that particular shot. My understanding is that it was engineered that way to prevent further outbreak.

other allergic reactions happened to my daughter from normal vaccines like MMR.

so when it comes to the counter argument not having enough facts, I'm assuming it's fake narrative news. When docs dont give the time of day for allergic reactions or adverse effects, then we are doomed to ignorance. Having my 80 year old grandfather get the flu shot was totally inexcusable. Changing a grown man's diapers........ he would have been better off dead. Lost a lot of his ability as a human after that incident, lost complete recognition of people, basically brain dead.
You should file with the vaccine court. Free, painless, and big payouts requiring no proof. Better than complaining to people on Sherdog that a flu shot made your grandfather brain dead.
 
I’m not going to read a 30 page document from 1978.

You said blood pressure standards were recently changed because Big Pharma got involved to make more money and that doctors will lose their licenses if they do not comply and prescribe more drugs. All this is nonsense.
I said they were changed in the 60's and they are looking to get them changed again and that was cited in the video documents from Big Pharma. And yes once something like a high blood pressure or cholesterol is set and accepted by the medical establishment, then if Doctors ignore it (even if they disagree) they can be cited for negligence and potentially lose their license.
 
I said they were changed in the 60's and they are looking to get them changed again and that was cited in the video documents from Big Pharma. And yes once something like a high blood pressure or cholesterol is set and accepted by the medical establishment, then if Doctors ignore it (even if they disagree) they can be cited for negligence and potentially lose their license.
Blood pressure standards were recently adjusted and it had nothing to do with big Pharma. And the update is not likely to lead to significant prescribing changes.
 
Blood pressure standards were recently adjusted and it had nothing to do with big Pharma. And the update is not likely to lead to significant prescribing changes.

Really? HBP went from 140 down to 130, imagine the impact on drug prescripton.
 
Back
Top