|
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote:
It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things.
Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to.
Here, you might want to take a recommendation from me. I know a great service that can aid you in probably the next few years or so. Tell your loved ones too.
A great referal for you, its a well trusted company
|
On May 09 2009 11:24 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2009 11:16 Shizuru~ wrote:
"My point was that the things aren't in the least comparable. We are aware of the fluoride in our water.
You keep telling people to educate themselves but instead of providing a single credible source you're telling people to google stuff which seriously makes me doubt your knowledge on the matter instead of mine. Stop pretending to know what others know and presenting yourself as some expert on the matter and then telling people to educate themselves by googling a bunch of stuff, you're not exactly convincing me here." -Frits
from your tone, your just letting your ego get the best of u, even if i provide u with a credibe sources u'd just refute me cause u think ur right... think of me what ever u want, i'm just doing u a favor thats all, i'm looking back to my internet history to find all the credible sources i looked in the last few months. google is a good way to get ur research on a subject to get started btw, not everything on the internet is fake... This is the second time you're dodging the argument and attack me personally. First it's my lack of knowledge now it's my ego preventing me from accepting reasonable argument. You and physician are just being a bunch of douchebags so far. "Hey I'm not going to argue this subject with you because you're just gonna be unreasonable." The irony of that is incredible.
let me re-iterate myself, i'm all ears to listening to any new arguments presented with solid facts. i don't know everything, i'd like to know more about this subject really, but u've been refuting my arguments without any concrete facts, but by just spewing out baseless arguments... i would like to be proven wrong. which means i'm learning new things...
|
On May 09 2009 09:54 BalliSLife wrote:
You must thank dick cheney
obama's in charge.
|
|
|
|
|
fucked up. and he still wants to go back to the marines..
mann my brother's an army sergeant i hope canadian soldiers dont get this messed up treatment.. >.<
|
On May 09 2009 11:31 Shizuru~ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2009 11:24 Frits wrote:On May 09 2009 11:16 Shizuru~ wrote:
"My point was that the things aren't in the least comparable. We are aware of the fluoride in our water.
You keep telling people to educate themselves but instead of providing a single credible source you're telling people to google stuff which seriously makes me doubt your knowledge on the matter instead of mine. Stop pretending to know what others know and presenting yourself as some expert on the matter and then telling people to educate themselves by googling a bunch of stuff, you're not exactly convincing me here." -Frits
from your tone, your just letting your ego get the best of u, even if i provide u with a credibe sources u'd just refute me cause u think ur right... think of me what ever u want, i'm just doing u a favor thats all, i'm looking back to my internet history to find all the credible sources i looked in the last few months. google is a good way to get ur research on a subject to get started btw, not everything on the internet is fake... This is the second time you're dodging the argument and attack me personally. First it's my lack of knowledge now it's my ego preventing me from accepting reasonable argument. You and physician are just being a bunch of douchebags so far. "Hey I'm not going to argue this subject with you because you're just gonna be unreasonable." The irony of that is incredible. let me re-iterate myself, i'm all ears to listening to any new arguments presented with solid facts. i don't know everything, i'd like to know more about this subject really, but u've been refuting my arguments without any concrete facts, but by just spewing out baseless arguments... i would like to be proven wrong. which means i'm learning new things...
Now my argument are suddenly wrong, even though you have not adressed a single one so far, if they are so easy to refute please go ahead. You can't say I'm wrong without explaining why however, that's not fair.
And plenty of credible info can be found if you would just take a look into your university library. Mine even gives online access to an endless amount of peer reviewed articles online for free.
And maybe this is just me but please don't bold/italic/underline/capslock words you think are important when you write something, it looks so stupid.
|
This man like Andrew Wakefield, like every other anti-vac supporter, has never had anything published which was properly peer reviewed, since when the papers come, which they do they do, they are flawed and/or biased and scientists at large have rejected them, otherwise the situation would be very different.
But for some reason, people seem to think that the minority must be right, because they are the underdog, fighting for the rights of those mal-treated by the evil doctor overloads.
And you know what, I dare people not vaccinate, and run the risk as they watch their children and themselves horribly die of easily preventable and then their statistics to be used by the anti-vac to show an increase in deaths.
Of course there are dangerous things in medicine in syringes, but there are dangerous things in football, you can turn anything into bad thing if you only look at the negatives, hell what disease kills 100% of its victims eventually and we all have it? Its life, clearly we should just nuke the planet to put an end to birth.
|
fucked up, but hey, still better than getting fed radioactive oatmeal :/
|
Case in point, a website that pretty much looks at the negatives, does have some seemingly credible sources which I have yet to look up, but for the most part, the website is out of date, links to itself, newspapers, other non-reputable websites.
|
On May 09 2009 11:17 mahnini wrote:
tl;dw
can someone summarize that i don't want to go through all of that sappy junk to get to what actually happened.
They injected soldiers with unknown stuff and even when the dude was on the brink of death they did not release any info whatsoever. And suddenly they wrote "flu vaccine" on his sheet which was the supposed shot he received. An officer inside the army claims this is part of a coverup they are pretty much doing all the time and admits they are using soldiers as guinea pigs iirc. Like I said, some of the most unethical things I've ever heard of. I can't believe any doctor is agreeing to any of these methods.
The sad part is the dude and his family are so stupid that they have no idea what to do or what their rights are. The guy looks like he has an iq of about 90, and just wants to become a marine again, as if that's ever going to happen after a kidney transplant, poor guy.
|
On May 09 2009 10:47 Frits wrote:
There's a difference between high and low doses of fluoride which you don't seem to understand, low doses of fluoride has beneficial effects, high doses have negative effects. Again, this is not some coverup or anything of the likes, this is just an indicator of how far our scientific knowledge has advanced concerning these things. Hitler is not comparable to western democratic governments.
just to quickly throw this out there, hypersensitivity to heavy metals isn't all that uncommon. and more than that, you cannot accurate test the effects of small amounts of heavy metals on the brain. it is completely reasonable to think that even very low levels could mess with cognition.
and shizuru, ty for posting the video on fluoride
|
On May 09 2009 11:54 Kerotan wrote:Case in point, a website that pretty much looks at the negatives, does have some seemingly credible sources which I have yet to look up, but for the most part, the website is out of date, links to itself, newspapers, other non-reputable websites.
well, the only benefits i've read about is that it helps protect the teeth enamel, ie: only does the teeth good, i haven't read any other benefits it provides though, so far what i gather is, u can just apply the fluoride to your enamel for it to have its beneficial effects, you don't have to ingest it, where it gives u all sorts of problems...
|
On May 09 2009 11:17 mahnini wrote:
tl;dw
can someone summarize that i don't want to go through all of that sappy junk to get to what actually happened.
where do i even begin
1.) u could try just reading the thread
2.) u could skip past the bullshit, 2 minutes in, like i said to do in my post
3.) u could read posts in the thread that have been posted specifically to sum up the video
|
Didn't they run some tests on him to find out what he has? Why didn't they mention that?
|
On May 09 2009 12:01 Shizuru~ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2009 11:54 Kerotan wrote:Case in point, a website that pretty much looks at the negatives, does have some seemingly credible sources which I have yet to look up, but for the most part, the website is out of date, links to itself, newspapers, other non-reputable websites. well, the only benefits i've read about is that it helps protect the teeth enamel, ie: only does the teeth good, i haven't read any other benefits it provides though, so far what i gather is, u can just apply the fluoride to your enamel for it to have its beneficial effects, you don't have to ingest it, where it gives u all sorts of problems...
not really all sorts of problems, the only side effect that has really been found is if the concentration is too high in your water it decays your tooth enamel i believe. as long as it's like less than 3 ppm (i think... might be 2 or 4, i can't be certain) it's very safe to drink and will prevent cavities.
|
Shizuru: There isn't one developed country in the world without tremendously strict standards for what treatments they will allow to be performed on their citizens. If you develop a drug that cures cancer, it will still take you as much as a decade to get that drug onto the market, because you will have to spend millions of dollars on tightly controlled, scientific trials. This attention to detail is something that you have probably never experienced, but it's really necessary to have many, many trials and studies, consider everything that can possibly go wrong, and have all this checked by a lot of people.
So you're asking for evidence, but the evidence is so massive it's hard to even know where to start. Every single vaccine has individually gone through this process, each likely producing dozens of papers encompassing years of research.
It's an act of brazen arrogance to disrespect this process without rock solid evidence on your hands. And anecdotes are *not* evidence. You need facts, and those facts can only come from really rational analysis and experimentation.
Now, you can go look for peer-reviewed published papers that rationally analyze the safety of vaccines and support your points, but I don't think you'll find any. The reason is that only trained scientists really have the patience to produce experiments like this, and the views you are parroting are manufactured by people who are *not scientists*. They're mostly parents scared for their kids. I respect that they're scared, but that does not make them qualified to make this kind of decision. They are effectively guessing, based on data that they do not understand. They are not analyzing.
Vaccines are one of the most important things to happen in the history of modern health. Instead of losing many human lives across generations to crap like smallpox, we can eliminate these diseases over time through herd immunity. Smallpox is dead, but we may still see the reemergence of other killer diseases that we thought we had under control, all because of pointless fear-mongering by confused and ignorant people like yourself.
The fluoride conspiracy I just find ridiculous and don't give a shit about, but in the vaccine discussion there are potentially millions of lives at stake, and this is not an exaggeration.
If you knew a damn thing about science you wouldn't distrust it so much. Frits is absolutely right when he says that you should be at a university library rather than on Google if you're actually interested in learning about vaccine research, but you're clearly more interested in playing my-link-is-better-than-your-link. Peer-reviewed journals, find out what they are, go read some if you want, but you'll probably need to take a detour to acquire a biology degree so you might want to wait a few years before responding to this thread.
|
Frankly, I have yet to find an concise and definitive experiment that quantifies the full benefit and harm of fluoride treatments.
@Shizuru~, it's not as simple as you think. You actually do need to ingest the fluoride to derive its full benefit. When you brush your teeth with fluoride, how long do you think the fluoride stays in contact with your teeth, really? The effect is minimal if you don't ingest it, although I have not seen a definitive evidence.
To my current knowledge, the general consensus of the scientific community is that there is an "optimum" quantity of fluoride that one should take in order to derive the maximum benefit while minimizing the harm.
I still don't understand why people keep thinking random websites are the best source of scientific information. People can twist experiments and results to fit whatever agenda they have in mind when they paraphrase (or even make up) results.
|
Shizuru, you may want to stop trying to convince people. They've already been taught.
|
On May 09 2009 11:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2009 10:47 Frits wrote:
There's a difference between high and low doses of fluoride which you don't seem to understand, low doses of fluoride has beneficial effects, high doses have negative effects. Again, this is not some coverup or anything of the likes, this is just an indicator of how far our scientific knowledge has advanced concerning these things. Hitler is not comparable to western democratic governments.
just to quickly throw this out there, hypersensitivity to heavy metals isn't all that uncommon. and more than that, you cannot accurate test the effects of small amounts of heavy metals on the brain. it is completely reasonable to think that even very low levels could mess with cognition. and shizuru, ty for posting the video on fluoride
I'm not sure how fluoride is a heavy metal, you should take another look at the periodic table because that statement makes no sense to me. That and it is only toxic in high doses, even to people who are hypersensitive to it. It's not defined as a toxic metal though anywhere.
And it sounds completely unreasonable that it could affect cognition in low doses. I don't even know if fluoride can pass the blood brain barrier, left my neuropsychology book at home so I can't really look anything up right now lol. But even then, how would it affect cognition, what receptors would it work on? I really really really don't think this is possible. The effects of (heavy) metals poisoning occurs through accumulation in the kidney in any case don't they? So it would simply not affect cognition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
