HeartSick...

My daughter in Brooklyn NYC had Covid and got quite sick, then got very sick after both Maderna Covid shots. My wife is a pharmacist and epidemiologist who worked at FDA 40 years. She will not get any RNA vaccine, might get the single shot J&J vaccine as it’s based on old proven technology. No long term effect studies have been done on the 2 shot vaccines, not FDA approved just approved for emergency use. I won’t get it either[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I'm sorry about your daughter situation.

 

The CDC was involved in a coverup of information relative to the adverse effects of vaccines, specifically, as you alluded to, with respect to the MMR and autism. The whistle was blown on that, with the help of some key information released via an FOIA request. However, when that information came out, the whistleblower was discredited (deviously) and main stream media wouldn't give the report any credence. The CDC will give you one-sided information like any other organization will: theirs. They push the vaccines--so which side would you expect them to give?

There is absolutely no proof that vaccines have ended any diseases. Yes, they do a lot of harm. If you want to know what's in them, search online for "vaccine excipients." Whether or not the CDC divulges true and accurate information on this, they do at least have a PDF online that lists the excipients for each vaccine, including ingredients from monkeys, dogs, pigs, eagles, cows, aborted fetuses (MRC-5, WI-38), mercury (thimerosal), formaldehyde, aluminum, etc. They don't seem to include all of the COVID-19 vaccine ingredients yet, but they do list a few.

It does attempt to refute any "other" view categorically, by referring to "credible source." They allude, of course, that theirs is the credible source--and one should throw all others to the wind.

The study was not shown to be faulty--they just maligned the whistleblower. The CDC study involved a large sampling of MMR recipients from a diverse background of ethnicities, etc. It was discovered that for black children, and for boys, the statistical significance of a connection to autism was apparent in the CDC's own study. Since they could never allow such information to spoil their mantra that "vaccines are safe," they quickly made adjustments to their study. By adding arbitrary rules on qualifications of the study participants, they were able to remove a large number of the blacks. This reduced the incidence of autism to a point where it appeared less statistically relevant. However, they realized that if their sample size was large enough, they would be forced to conclude a correlation--so they tightly controlled their sample size to prevent any statistical significance from becoming obvious. Every good scientist knows that a large sample size gives better study results--so it is clear they did not wish to have those results.

"Peer-reviewed" is a politically correct way to refer to the big boys' club. It basically means that if your ideas are "mainstream" or "conventional," we'll let them get published. If not, they won't see the light of print.

The fact is, most studies are deeply flawed. Their findings cannot be repeated via another study. To understand why this is true, read "Scientific Regress," by William A. Wilson. He brilliantly details the mathematical reasons why scientific research arrives at incorrect conclusions.

 

For everyone posting recently: PLEASE keep the sperging debate elsewhere. ResetButton has asked for advice and this tangent is completely unhelpful. This debate has already happened hundreds of thousands of times elsewhere.

 

Unfortunately, as I understand the rules of the forum here, it may not be allowed to copy posts of other people to a new thread where a response to them could be made.

As there is no special "Personal Journals" designation here of which I am aware, this is ambiguous and open to interpretation. If the OP considers this his "journal," that would prohibit copying posts from this to a discussion elsewhere. A moderator, however, could choose to move them. Are you a moderator?

EDIT: Note that the OP did mention the COVID-19 vaccine in the OP, and the OP has not been the one to complain about the thread having gone off-topic. It should be the OP's prerogative to do so.

 

How does disability has something to do with PMO

 

Random Fapstronaut Note: The above disclaimer from one moderator is an act of intellectual vandalism and should be removed.

^Do you see how unhelpful that statement is?

I find it unfortunate that someone from the moderation team marked your post with this catch-all disclaimer. First of all, if you (speaking to the moderator who wrote/applied this mark) are going to include a disclaimer like that, it helps to not include warnings that are impertinent. For instance, nowhere in the author's post did the author suggest that COVID-19 is not a real virus, nor did the author suggest that it does not pose a real threat to people. Likewise, nowhere did the author suggest that any reader disobey any lawful orders of their respective governments.

The author merely stated his opinion on this forum, and it just so happens that you think his opinion is worth censoring. However, there are arguably thousands of posts on this forum that contain opinions that may be considered "untrue", such as posts arguing that unhealthy PMO habits are in fact healthy. Yet these posts are not flagged (nor should they be).

I'm not in any way insinuating that the moderator(s) have disobeyed forum rules. As part of the leadership team, they set and interpret the rules. However, I find it insultingly parental of you to assume that adults (or almost adults) on a site dedicated to bettering themselves, require your pithy guidance.

Let me ask you this: Did your moderation note change anyone's mind about this issue? Did you contribute anything of interest to the author's point of view? I think (and I may be wrong) that you get a little ego boost out of being "right" about this issue. Is your ability to allow others to live with freedom and opinion so fragile and threatened that you simply must gain the upper hand by infiltrating someone else's thoughts and putting a big red stamp on them? It's as if you owned a book store and then went around crossing out words you didn't like and adding your own messages. I see it as nothing short of intellectual vandalism.

My own opinion on this topic should be irrelevant, but lest you read this post and think "He's simply an anti-vaccine person with ruffled feathers", allow me to reassure you that I am not.

I don't know that I've helped anything with this post, but I felt it necessary to mention my point of view on this. If you have contrary points that would explain where you're coming from, I would be interested to hear.

 

In actual fact, if you stop and read the moderation note even more carefully, you'll see a hint of disagreement between said moderator(s) and the medical community regarding COVID.

Note that the statement speaks of "information the science, medical, and political communities consider misinformation." It stops short of declaring it to be actual misinformation. In other words, take it how you like, but I took it as simply them putting on their face mask for the political correctness of it so that they would not be targets for a lawsuit over it, even when their heart is not in it.

As for me, I believe when one does not stand up to be counted for one's belief, one is a coward. Throw political correctness to the wind. Speak the truth, respectfully and courteously, but firmly and openly. If one knows the foolishness of plastering a piece of permeable paper to his/her face just for the show of it, then don't do it.

Since when did Bill Gates get to practice medicine without a license anyhow? He never even completed college, so far as I'm aware, much less medical school. Yet he is the one pushing the vaccine hardest. Sigh. The most ignorant are often the most opinionated, and the most likely to enforce their benighted opinions upon all others.

Get the vaccine if you wish. I won't. We're both entitled to freedom of choice, not just those on one side of the question. In fact, I intend to take a stand on the issue not unlike that of Rosa Parks in her protest of the unjust and racist laws of her day. In my case, it is a matter of conscience. How can I put impurities into my body that will dishonor my Maker?

The whole requirement to "massage" our DNA into action against a man-made virus is an affront to God. God holds the patent, as our Creator, on our DNA. We have no authority to play around with it.

Undoubtedly, God is "heartsick" over the issue. He will not hold His patience forever.

 

You got a bad case of oneitis lad.