Keep pushing your agenda while accusing others of the same. I assure you that nothing good comes from talking ridiculous shit about the STEM community and medicine while simultaneously relying on them to generate revenue from this type of content. Without big-bad science you wouldn't have a platform to preach from, and let's be honest, you're in this for the money by posting this on Steemit while hurling accusations of others being greedy.
"It’s time for Big Pharma, Gov’t and MSM to stop driving one-way agendas and manipulating data and test results"
Declared in confidence after manipulating data to push a one-way agenda. Trite.
Please don't use the "Science" tag for this again, as this is most certainly a perversion of it. Do you wonder why this material gets flagged? Wonder no longer.
I could make much more money writing lighter content and earn more money than I do now, but I don't. You don't know me or what my motivations and intent are so please don't pretend that you do by linking my posts back money.
It has never been about money for me (sure it's helpful but it is not a primary driver). If you'd read my Why I'm on Steemit - Reason 4 blog you'd see that I have made plenty of money in the past and that I plan to give almost everything that I make away while I am still alive so that I can direct how it is spent.
If you'd read Billionaire Secretly Gives Away His Entire $8 Billion Fortune Away in 34 Years – True Story! you'd know that the actions of men like Chuck Feeney inspire me to help others.
I didn't realize that you were the person in charge of the 'science tag' on Steemit. It must be a great responsibility and burden for you to carry the weight of determining what constitutes science. Should I pay homage to you and obey your wishes or should I continue to blog about the darker-side of science that more and more people are now questioning?
The graphs and findings in this post were assembled by a scientist with a PhD. Who are you to define and frame what is and isn't science? Greedy men have had a strangle hold on the sciences for over a hundred years. They determine the curriculum, who gets funding and who doesn't and generally dominate and control the narrative just as you are trying to do now.
You are free to blog about any topic that you wish and so am I. That's the wonderful thing about free speech. Only those with an agenda or something to hide are afraid of free speech and transparent and open debates like these.
Shit dawg, I didn't know you were so virtuous and that scientists were so evil, but also somehow necessary to corroborate your minimalist MS Paint figures with psychedelic graphics to really make them pop!
And a scientist with a Ph.D? That's almost as good as Dr. Oz with an MD! Plenty of people who have a Ph.D are out to lunch, much like your post is. There is something in the sciences called consensus, and you should become familiar with it before you go hurling accusations and vilifying people who have dedicated their entire lives to reducing human suffering.
You've rehashed the same trite conspiratorial drivel for 3 posts this week now. The science community is getting real sick of your posturing as a truth-sayer, all while degrading them. I'm not the ambassador for the science community, but I'm certain they would agree with the sentiment that it's time to call it quits. There is a reason your garbage analysis gets flagged; it's a fucking public safety issue.
Unfortunately the science community is not in consensus. There are studies on both sides showing both the benefits and risks when you are willing to see the whole picture. You will quickly discover there is not a 100% guarantee that vaccines will work or that they are even safe for you and your family. As a mother of three, having witnessed "adverse reactions" myself in my children and others and then reading the vaccine package inserts you will find information that will really astound you.
If you have children or ever decide to have children these kinds of matters are not something you can just accept from the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry without first being very thorough. It is a fact that out of all developed countries the United States has the highest infant mortality rate and we also have the highest number of doses of various vaccines given before the age of 2. Every year they seem to add another one as well.
There are so many factors from toxins to genetics but I really urge you to dig deeper. You will be shocked when you start to see the truth. Here are a couple vaccine package inserts from the FDA. Just take a look at the "adverse reactions" aka "possible side affects" aka "contraindications" and the fact that vaccines like the MMR and chicken pox vaccine must be grown on living human tissue, tissue that was taken from fetuses should be cause for concern. We are taking viruses and bacteria mixed with DNA fragments and injecting them with a whole slew of preservatives including aluminum and formaldehyde. We cannot accept without knowing first ....
https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-bio-gen/documents/document/ucm123789.pdf
For the MMR
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM124514.pdf
and for the Dtap
Trust me on this one, I used to be part of the anti-vaccination crowd back when I was rather impressionable in my late teens and early 20s. I understand that there can be adverse reactions -- a close friend of mine is an example of having an anaphylactic response -- but the "evidence" used to demonize scientists and medical health professionals as a part of some grandiose conspiracy is blatantly false. I also understand how the false sense of knowledge from these crowds can be so alluring, complete with the sensation of acceptance within a community where everyone is a part of the same self-validating ideological circle-jerk.
Of course the FDA lists the possibility of side effects -- shit happens in the real world and the medical community likes to be prepared. Vaccines are constantly in development to ensure that we can make safer and more effective immunizations; no one said vaccines were 100% effective -- only you did. I'd take the negligible risk of adverse reactions over the much higher probability of spreading diseases that carry debilitating consequences.
Also lol@"There's DNA fragments!"
There's DNA in the food you eat, and your own cells, and the bacteria in your mouth employ it as a structural component of dental plaque. Fun fact: Everyone is a mutant of some kind and DNA is everywhere. Humans got their ABO blood group proteins (the glycosyltransferases for the more literate) from bacteria in a horizontal gene transfer event estimated to have occurred around a million years ago. Might sound spooky to those who don't know any better, but it's really not. Stop with the scare tactics that exploit scientific ignorance to hawk a false narrative -- that is, unless your own scientific ignorance has been exploited to get you to join a cause, in which case you are excused. You may not know any different, but some of these people know not to perpetuate such flawed logic and call it "truth".
Keep up the good fight brother. This has proven to be thankless work, except for your upvote on earlier comments in this post.
Its called insertional mutagenasis and it is when foreign DNA fragments are injected directly into tissues as this peer reviewed scientific study explains.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ilmed31&div=23&id=&page=
In addition eating DNA and injecting DNA are two very completely different things. Many of the potential risks listed under adverse reactions for many of these vaccines often list the very illness trying to be prevented therefore they know that in some individuals it actually gives them the illness thereby spreading it, not preventing it.
In addition autoimmune diseases are springing up following vaccination in previously healthy individuals as a result of insertional mutagensis.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-in-journal-of-public-health-finds-autism-and-cancer-related-to-human-fetal-dna-in-vaccines/5402912
This is old information but it is clear that its unpopular to share among people who seem to take it so personal that vaccines are not 100% safe nor 100% effective. The risks are too great and if you can ignore reading the vaccine package inserts but then proclaim them as safe you are being exactly what you are accusing of others...
This guy is troll and can’t put up a good argument. When a commentor is demeaning and starts throwing fallacies like a monkey...it’s not worth the energy it takes to respond....
Unless you want to speak to the lurkers that are reading comments. I speak to the lurkers...
This is such a bad argument i actually giggled
I’m going to be writing an article on how to argue badly for a few laughs
I know, he's being rather rude and condescending about it but I guess my hope is that if we can try our best to stop this "us" and "them" rhetoric we can share more truths. You are right some are simply trolls so wrapped up in their own perspective they cannot even consider information that may challenge that perspective but I guess I continue to respond thinking of my children... I've heard so many mothers say... I wish I had known there were risks before my daughter got her 6 month vaccines and suddenly had uncontrollable pretty regular seizures. I'll share and I'll try. At some point people see its not 100% for vaccine safety or effectiveness and just seeing that is a step I feel. Thank you @reddust
Cute. I actually know a thing or two about DNA, recombination, and mutagenesis; you know, being a biochemist and all. The fetal tissue part is what really gets me, what with the appeal to morality and all. I'm pretty sure scientists make vaccines to kill babies -- that's gotta be it!
Thanks for trying out!
Wait so if you know a thing or two about DNA why would you even compare eating DNA to injecting it. You know they are completely different... and what do you mean the fetal tissue really gets you? Do you mean you are unaware that vaccine manufacturers use live human tissue to grow human viruses for vaccines? And that in order to find compatible fetal tissue several fetal tissue samples were tested until viable host DNA was found? And besides that how can you proclaim vaccines prevent diseases which have "much higher probability of preventing diseases with debilitating consequences" when they in fact can give the recipient that very disease when the recipient's immune system does not respond as intended. It is true not all vaccines are created equal as each have very different rates of adverse reactions and effectiveness. But as someone who is educated in biochemistry, shouldn't you be looking at ALL of the facts especially if they don't all add up?
Cause and effect do you understand the difference ?
Does pimple pus prevent pimples ?
Cow pus prevented small pox ?
Poison prevents poison?
Toxoids prevent toxins ?
You've spammed this same comment multiple times on multiple posts now. Do you seriously think immunology can be reduced do your haphazard analogies? It is evident you have no understanding as to how the immune system functions and will only appeal to information that fits your confirmation bias.
I believe it is you who does not understand cause and effect.
P.S. Your Steemit name is a tragic irony.
Understand immunology? Like what antibodies do not determine immunity?
"Effective" means that a vaccine is injected (vaccination) into the patient, and the patient develops an antibody. Vaccination does not mean that the patients develops an immunity.
Scientists prove that the antibodies from vaccinations
ARE NOT NEEDED.
To prove this, scientists from HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, M.I.T., massachusetts general, san raffaele institute (Italy), and other institutes, co-authored and published on how they removed all antibodies from mice, leaving only B-Cells, which successfully fought off lethal viruses. This debunks vaccine manufacturers who say that vaccines are necessary to convey immunity. This
suggests that repeated vaccinations could be the reason why some vaccinated people lose their natural immunities, as their body tends to unnaturally rely on temporary, antibody-based immunities.
Immunity 2012 Mar 23; 36(3): 415-426:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359130/pdf/nihms-377739.pdf
there is more to the immune system than just antibodies
I will repeat myself as many times as drug commercial repeat themselves about all the damn side effects just to get a hard on
I remember my first book on health and nutrition like 25 years ago lol
Oh those drug deficiencies
hypocrite. you will get help in myocardial infarction emergency from a doctor but not and advice from a cardiologist for vaccines.
Regarding Adverse Reactions: You would save a lot more people by taking guns and cars off the street then ending vaccine mandates. If people walked more that would help individual and public health.
Well unless you know someone who has ended up with an auto immune disease following a vaccination, in rare cases coma and seizure occur, and then the fact that each vaccine has differing effectiveness rates is really the root of it. Each vaccine should be looked at separately and then their cumulative effects as well. Some will still choose a vaccine despite the risks but those risks are largely ignored and rarely communicated to parents of children or even adults themselves. When they start pushing shots like the HPV on our youth when it has not been proven effective against STD cancers and it has been causing infertility, comas, paralysis, seizures and death I have a serious problem with that, especially when news outlets shy away from covering those stories.
I cannot disagree with approaching each vaccine seperately, yet for the last 24 hours of debate on this article, the Anti-Vax opponents have changed arguments everytime I brought specific evidence to their arguments that support a different conclusion then their own.
I do not know any specifics about HPV vaccines, but I do know the risks were communicated early and often and I was never within the suggested demographic for that particular vaccine.
Anti-Vaxxers are on an anti-business tangent in their general coverage oft his matter, yet none have been able to answer if ending public funding for vaccines will actually provide a benefit. Their style and adherance to formal argumentation is squirlley enough I have to ask if this is not a politically motivated campaign to divert funding to military efforts instead.
Please read the rest of my comments on this post in the frame of strict critical thinking and argumentation rules.
Ok I'll take a look when I have a minute. I know that when we are emotional it is hard to be logical. The fact that some states are beginning to take away the freedom to choose or decline a vaccine has definitely caused quite an emotional response especially regarding children.
I certainly don't want government officials harassing me for my personal choices especially when we are not given the full scope of risks involved with vaccines. Corporations are designed for the sole purpose of earning profits and marketing strategies can create a very one sided perspective on the matter.
For example a representative for "medical research" whose pay check comes from a pharmaceutical company will be paid to produce research that emphasizes the benefits over the risks. The risks are often briefly mentioned and dismissed assuring one it is perfectly safe (despite the looooong list of adverse reactions). If you have never heard of "shedding" it would go to show how much information they keep out of the mainstream.
Shedding is when a vaccine strain of a virus spreads to others from an individual who was recently vaccinated... rather than protecting and preventing the illness it can sometimes spread it and there are a number of peer reviewed studies that support this. If you are interested in this aspect of vaccines here is a link for many of those studies. Anyway I will look at your other comments and thank you for being up for a more respectful conversation about this... http://medscienceresearch.com/shedding/
Thanks for posting this comment, I'm really disgusted by anti-science posts like this that manipulate statistics to push their anti-vaccine agenda.
Also: Correlation does not imply causation.
Explain how infectious diseases decline when vaccines are introduced when correlation does not imply causation ?
posts that attract friends,
Haha and trolls! ;)
vaccines cause trolls ;)
why laugh, some funny yes.