1952
Comments (196)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
8
Faintlight 8 points ago +8 / -0

You need to look into vaccines past the third page.

0
BeauBidenBrainTumor 0 points ago +2 / -2

What reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal do you propose? Unlike "climate change", there is a solid non-political scientific consensus favoring vaccination going back many decades.

5
Faintlight 5 points ago +6 / -1

A "scientific consensus" is not the same as actual testing. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm not what you might think of as an "anti-vaxxer." But I AM against vaccinating newborns for hepatitis, and giving them three mercury-infused vaccines at once while they're tiny, etc. These things have NOT been tested, and pharma companies are indemnified against loss from lawsuits. How does that make sense? The vaccines and number of vaccines they give now are not the same as the ones they gave when we were kids.

1
BeauBidenBrainTumor 1 point ago +2 / -1

Are you arguing there are vaccines in use that were not subject to testing, clinical trials, and FDA approval prior to widespread adoption by the medical community? If you can prove this, don't waste time debating me or any other person. Start a class-action lawsuit and get rich.

For what it's worth, the CDC released a simple guide for the risks of thimerosal which may assuage some concerns.

I would disagree with indemnification, if true, but that's more a function of big government and political patronage than proof that vaccines are harmful. Any industry which can leverage the government to block lawsuits will, even if they make lace doilies much less medicines.

3
Faintlight 3 points ago +3 / -0

Are you arguing there are vaccines in use that were not subject to testing, clinical trials, and FDA approval prior to widespread adoption by the medical community?

FDA approval means shit. They are bought and paid for. CDC means shit, as you are seeing clearly now.

You don't know indemnification is a fact? That is CENTRAL. No argument has to go on past that. Why continue working on cures if you can make a fortune with some shit vaccine that doesn't have to work, and if it kills people or makes them autistic or whatever, NO PROBLEM. Vaccines are the pharma big bucks now.

And people do make a lot of money suing.

2
GoldenEarz 2 points ago +2 / -0

Start a class-action lawsuit and get rich.

Vax manufacturers can't be sued.

Here’s Robert F Kennedy jr (a reputable source who made a career using science to sue big corps) on what he found looking into vax info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMH6hfwp__8 tldr; vaccines are “biologics” so don’t have the same safety testing as “medicines”; MMR vax was only tested on 800 people over 42 days (not long term) yet 50% had adverse reaction

And here he says CDC found 11x increase of autism in kids w hepb vax 1st 60 days, but never published results, then tweaked data to erase it (RFK foia'd original docs). https://youtu.be/8X_I-wCytaE?t=110

And here he talks about adverse effects of HPV vax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yf4-P2qbHo