What's new

Article on the Vaccine Issue

Let’s start with a faulty base premise he’s using. Tying the violation of free speech to the vaccine debate. Having your speech and thoughts respected or even listened to by other people is not protected under free speech. Free speech is that the government won’t pass laws restricting your speech. There is a very important distinction there.

Also, not all opinions are worthy of respect. Such as someones opinion that one ethnicity is less than another. Or that women are less than men. I’d include opinions that contradict fact in a way that endangers society. Such as vaccines cause, or are linked to, autism.

Multiple points in his piece are misleading. The rise in diseases that were previously unheard of in geographical areas is usually tied to a rise in unvaccinated people in that area.

On the go So I’m keeping this short. I’ll end with this.

Want to make vaccines safer. Cool, nothing wrong with that. But spreading misinformation, lies and propaganda to influence others to not vaccinate is stupid and dangerous. You are placing those individuals in danger and individuals that cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons.

This is not an opinion worth respecting. It’s stupid ********.

And so I’ll mostly refrain so I don’t get the fract hammer
 
If only there were some sort of scientific way to determine if vaccines are helpful or hurtful. Almost like a statistical analysis or something? Maybe that type of thing could be used to help sort out this issue.
 
The benefits of vaccines out weights the risks by about a million times. You have higher chance of being killed or injured driving the car than from vaccine. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Let’s start with a faulty base premise he’s using. Tying the violation of free speech to the vaccine debate. Having your speech and thoughts respected or even listened to by other people is not protected under free speech. Free speech is that the government won’t pass laws restricting your speech. There is a very important distinction there.

Also, not all opinions are worthy of respect. Such as someones opinion that one ethnicity is less than another. Or that women are less than men. I’d include opinions that contradict fact in a way that endangers society. Such as vaccines cause, or are linked to, autism.

Multiple points in his piece are misleading. The rise in diseases that were previously unheard of in geographical areas is usually tied to a rise in unvaccinated people in that area.

On the go So I’m keeping this short. I’ll end with this.

Want to make vaccines safer. Cool, nothing wrong with that. But spreading misinformation, lies and propaganda to influence others to not vaccinate is stupid and dangerous. You are placing those individuals in danger and individuals that cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons.

This is not an opinion worth respecting. It’s stupid ********.

And so I’ll mostly refrain so I don’t get the fract hammer
Killed it.

End debate, end thread.

@Stoked for president of JF
 
I never started a debate. People here want to be dictators of thought. There is no flexibility and they base this on their opinion. What he is saying is exactly what you are doing. Censoring a subject because you don't agree with it. And furthermore, I have never told people not to be vaccinated. I have just brought up the topic that there are some concerns about vaccines. If those concerns are valid and there is some evidence of that -- I posted two documents with a long list of studies that have identified possible concerns, then the government shouldn't be shutting it down or censoring it. Rather, they should be more vigilant in ensuring the safety of vaccines.

The point that almost no one seems to get is the profit, the money that is being made in the production of vaccines and the increasing number of required vaccines that is a function of the capitalistic system -- but is it truly a function of improving our health? Legitimate questions I think but no one here wants to acknowledge this.
 
There are also some concerns about the world being a globe. I suppose we need to take those concerns seriously since apparently there isn't consensus, since a few people, including engineers, disagree.
 
I think you have to question the use of the word "unambiguously," in the punch line. The writer starts out with the premise that vaccines aren't a money-maker but that in recent years they have become so. My point is that people need to use caution, number one; and two, there are intelligent voices out there who have done a lot more research on this than you or I and have no financial investment in this issue who are raising concerns. I keep harping on this point of money being involved. In fact, money is the big issue in the treatment of cancer, the trillions of dollars invested in conventional treatment, which is preventing research into herbal remedies that show promise without the horrid side effects. The Pharmaceutical industry is the richest in the world and in the U.S. its prices are not regulated. That should make you stop and think. Maybe my concerns about vaccines are unfounded; maybe they are "unambiguously" safe -- if you note, any one of us could've written that article. It was only as good as her sources; she is not a researcher or expert in this field. But I think we ought to make sure that's true and not listen to the pharmaceutical companies who don't care about people's health and only about their bottomline. Listen to the naysayers, give them the right to speak, and if the evidence shows they are wrong, then we can move on.
 
I think you have to question the use of the word "unambiguously," in the punch line. The writer starts out with the premise that vaccines aren't a money-maker but that in recent years they have become so. My point is that people need to use caution, number one; and two, there are intelligent voices out there who have done a lot more research on this than you or I and have no financial investment in this issue who are raising concerns. I keep harping on this point of money being involved. In fact, money is the big issue in the treatment of cancer, the trillions of dollars invested in conventional treatment, which is preventing research into herbal remedies that show promise without the horrid side effects. The Pharmaceutical industry is the richest in the world and in the U.S. its prices are not regulated. That should make you stop and think. Maybe my concerns about vaccines are unfounded; maybe they are "unambiguously" safe -- if you note, any one of us could've written that article. It was only as good as her sources; she is not a researcher or expert in this field. But I think we ought to make sure that's true and not listen to the pharmaceutical companies who don't care about people's health and only about their bottomline. Listen to the naysayers, give them the right to speak, and if the evidence shows they are wrong, then we can move on.
But the evidence HAS shown they're safe. Some people refuse to believe it.
 
Why did you have to start another thread, by the way? What was wrong with the other one?
This was different because it wasn't so much about whether vaccines are safe or not, but about silencing voices who question their safety. That was the main point, though Mercola is one of those informed voices who has concerns, and what is happening on this site to me is very similar. Because I've raised possible concerns, I'm being accused of endangering peoples' lives because they'll be reluctant to get vaccinated. I'll be honest. I myself won't get the flu shot. There have been concerns about it for a long time. If an epidemic arose and they developed a vaccine for it, yes I would get vaccinated. I'm not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm just being cautious. At the same time, I don't think I would opt for chemotherapy, at least not until I considered all my options, as there are many forms of cancer, and a lot of variables to consider.
 
This was different because it wasn't so much about whether vaccines are safe or not, but about silencing voices who question their safety. That was the main point, though Mercola is one of those informed voices who has concerns, and what is happening on this site to me is very similar. Because I've raised possible concerns, I'm being accused of endangering peoples' lives because they'll be reluctant to get vaccinated. I'll be honest. I myself won't get the flu shot. There have been concerns about it for a long time. If an epidemic arose and they developed a vaccine for it, yes I would get vaccinated. I'm not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm just being cautious. At the same time, I don't think I would opt for chemotherapy, at least not until I considered all my options, as there are many forms of cancer, and a lot of variables to consider.

They’re voices are not silenced. They’re ignored and refuted. You can go on any social platform and find anti vax posts, articles, groups...

And here you are still posting about it and haven’t been banned. You’re not a victim. You haven’t been silenced and your freedom of speech hasn’t been infringed. You’re simply wrong, dramatically so.

Don’t like the response? To bad, welcome to Freedom of Speech lol
 
This was different because it wasn't so much about whether vaccines are safe or not, but about silencing voices who question their safety. That was the main point, though Mercola is one of those informed voices who has concerns, and what is happening on this site to me is very similar. Because I've raised possible concerns, I'm being accused of endangering peoples' lives because they'll be reluctant to get vaccinated. I'll be honest. I myself won't get the flu shot. There have been concerns about it for a long time. If an epidemic arose and they developed a vaccine for it, yes I would get vaccinated. I'm not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm just being cautious. At the same time, I don't think I would opt for chemotherapy, at least not until I considered all my options, as there are many forms of cancer, and a lot of variables to consider.

Oh for goodness sakes, get down off that crucifix, someone needs the wood!

First off, JazzFanz isn't bound by free speech laws. Like any private party forum, they're free to ban or allow whatever speech they like. And the fact is, while we may all think you're an idiot and ridicule you, you're still posting here. I'm sorry if people calling you out on your crap offends you... no, wait, I'm not. If you keep talking bollocks, you're going to get slapped down, and deservedly so. It's that simple.
 
If "Big Pharma" is this big, all-powerful force in our world and can compel those a couple degrees of separation outside their industry to support their "lies" why are they getting sued for their role in opioid abuse, addiction and death? Why aren't they wielding their magical powers to shut that **** down?
 
If "Big Pharma" is this big, all-powerful force in our world and can compel those a couple degrees of separation outside their industry to support their "lies" why are they getting sued for their role in opioid abuse, addiction and death? Why aren't they wielding their magical powers to shut that **** down?
Big Pharma is the richest industry in the world. This is simply a cost of doing business for them. Seriously.
 
If "Big Pharma" is this big, all-powerful force in our world and can compel those a couple degrees of separation outside their industry to support their "lies" why are they getting sued for their role in opioid abuse, addiction and death? Why aren't they wielding their magical powers to shut that **** down?
Oh for goodness sakes, get down off that crucifix, someone needs the wood!

First off, JazzFanz isn't bound by free speech laws. Like any private party forum, they're free to ban or allow whatever speech they like. And the fact is, while we may all think you're an idiot and ridicule you, you're still posting here. I'm sorry if people calling you out on your crap offends you... no, wait, I'm not. If you keep talking bollocks, you're going to get slapped down, and deservedly so. It's that simple.
I would hope that Jazzfanz is bound by free speech, and in any case, you don't operate this site. And I have never said anything idiotic on here. The idiots are the people who start calling people names and ridicule them because someone disagrees with them. I'm not talking bollocks, either. All you can do is voice an opinion. How about citing some of those cautionary studies I posted. No, you just go and start calling me names. In fact, that is against the rules of the board.
 
I would hope that Jazzfanz is bound by free speech, and in any case, you don't operate this site. And I have never said anything idiotic on here. The idiots are the people who start calling people names and ridicule them because someone disagrees with them. I'm not talking bollocks, either. All you can do is voice an opinion. How about citing some of those cautionary studies I posted. No, you just go and start calling me names. In fact, that is against the rules of the board.
Oh, it is absolutely NOT bound by free speech rules. You can tell by the fact that it's not the government. While Jason et al may generally adhere to the idea of not banning speech, the fact is, they do control it - which is why people can get banned for swearing.

As for you never saying anything idiotic on this site... Well, I'll just say that's a matter of interpretation. And I dare you to find where I've "called you names."
 
Top