Glenn Beck to reveal info that will "Take Down The Entire Power Structure"

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

Here's a link to the Jenny McCarthy body count website. It lists the totals of preventable illnesses and deaths caused by lack of vaccination in the USA (Jenny McCarthy makes a living selling and promoting antivaccination bullshit)

lol

jenny mccarthy

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

Seriously, dude? You're a stupid, lunatic piece of shit. I hope you get polio, hpv and measles all at the same time.

You may wanna enlighten yourself to the circular universe and how things have a way of coming back around in life. It's an eastern philo that is karmic centric.


But thanks for addressing the issue head on. Why bother with a freedom of information release from UK doctors spilling the beans on the vaccine hoax, just wish death upon those that disagree with you and you win.

[Future Boy]

only once they die

[Bread Regal]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

The evidence suggest the exact opposite and that its the medical establishment as the one with the blood on their hands.

I think you're confusing the concepts of "evidence" and "nothing".

[hnibos]

He's a dope. I blame his mother.

[Dead Frequency]

I heard she was a babe

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Bread Regal

I think you're confusing the concepts of "evidence" and "nothing".

Well then you couldn't have possibly read the evidence and yet you have knowledge its nothing. Fascinating. And I can accused of being delusional.


Perhaps this is pointless since your mind is made up. But on the off chance you want to take this in and come to your own conclusions, here ya go.




http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/...omljenovic.pdf

"Here I present the documentation which appears to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity”, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence as will be explained."

In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;

4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;

5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;

6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;

7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;

8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;

Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice.

[Bread Regal]

I don't exactly have time at the moment to parse 45 pages of research. But since you have already read the thing in its entirety (you did copy and paste the abstract, after all!), why don't you copy and paste the bits that definitively show a statistically significant difference in disease risk between vaccinated children and non-vaccinated children.

Bear in mind that measles still kills about 160,000 people a year in places that don't have a high rate of MMR vaccine uptake.

I'd like to add that what you're doing in this thread, as in many other threads, isn't anything like a meaningful debate. You're doing what resembles a debate, but it's not a debate. This is apparently your perception of what constitutes a proper argument: outlandish claims, supported by not-yet-peer-reviewed scientific papers often by people who are not writing about their own field of expertise that I'm not even sure that you have even bothered to read yourself.

But please enlighten me about what an ophthalmologist has to say about the efficacy of vaccines. I want to know this sort of stuff before I start doing my own epidemioogical research.

[Trotskilicious]

you're just one of the sheeple

[duovamp]

I mean is that guy easy to troll or what.

[Bread Regal]

I've decided that he's not trolling because he puts far too much effort into something that he doesn't believe, and I recently learned that he's in cahoots with Fysche, a verifiably insane person.

[Trotskilicious]

they're in a band together

they call themselves DAFT

[duovamp]

If he is a troll, then we should not respond to him.

If he is not a troll, then zero outside information has ever convinced him his theories are wrong, which means you will not affect his views no matter what you say, and therefore we should not respond to him.

[Trotskilicious]

i mean i'm pretty sure what you just said applies to yourself, too

[Trotskilicious]

but you enjoyed the werner herzog penguin video so i can't hate

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i mean i'm pretty sure what you just said applies to yourself, too

*shuffles off toward mountains*

[Trotskilicious]

Trolls (We're All)

[slunken]

i called the power structure today and they seem to still be at it; business as usual

[slunken]

also does anyone else automatically think of glenn miller everytime they see/hear the name glenn beck i know i do

[slunken]

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~asi/musi...glennjimmy.jpg
this info will take down the entire power structure

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by duovamp

If he is a troll, then we should not respond to him.

If he is not a troll, then zero outside information has ever convinced him his theories are wrong, which means you will not affect his views no matter what you say, and therefore we should not respond to him.

and yet someone inevitably responds to him. I've stopped trying to ignore it cause nobody else does

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by slunken

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~asi/musi...glennjimmy.jpg
this info will take down the entire power structure

[slunken]

trots,

[Bread Regal]

Originally Posted by killtrocity

and yet someone inevitably responds to him. I've stopped trying to ignore it cause nobody else does

I don't even necessarily do it for his benefit.

For example, there's a large chunk of people who are vehemently anti-religion who back up their claims with science that they don't understand. And they claim to be advocates of reason and critical thinking and these things are actually completely absent from their argument. They see people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Randi and Harris and admire them. And when it comes to arguing about the subjects these guys talk about, a well-reasoned argument is replace with ad hominem attacks, arrogance and audacity.

Scotty is just as contemptible as TOC, really. It's just easier to argue with TOC because he has the opposing stance. If I had my druthers Scotty would just never show up in these threads because he's the perfect straw man for conspiracy theorists.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Bread Regal

For example, there's a large chunk of people who are vehemently anti-religion who back up their claims with science that they don't understand. And they claim to be advocates of reason and critical thinking and these things are actually completely absent from their argument. They see people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Randi and Harris and admire them. And when it comes to arguing about the subjects these guys talk about, a well-reasoned argument is replace with ad hominem attacks, arrogance and audacity.

scotty (edit oh you were actually specifically talking about him after all lol)

i love reading your posts about science

in fact i would love reading a blog wherein you take down all the specious psuedo scientific and anti-scientific reasoning you can find

[Trotskilicious]

i like to make nasty jokes about the catholic church but that's because they're a lot of gold hoarding boy raping pederast shape shifting lizardmen.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Bread Regal

I don't exactly have time at the moment to parse 45 pages of research. But since you have already read the thing in its entirety (you did copy and paste the abstract, after all!), why don't you copy and paste the bits that definitively show a statistically significant difference in disease risk between vaccinated children and non-vaccinated children.

Bear in mind that measles still kills about 160,000 people a year in places that don't have a high rate of MMR vaccine uptake.

I'd like to add that what you're doing in this thread, as in many other threads, isn't anything like a meaningful debate. You're doing what resembles a debate, but it's not a debate. This is apparently your perception of what constitutes a proper argument: outlandish claims, supported by not-yet-peer-reviewed scientific papers often by people who are not writing about their own field of expertise that I'm not even sure that you have even bothered to read yourself.

But please enlighten me about what an ophthalmologist has to say about the efficacy of vaccines. I want to know this sort of stuff before I start doing my own epidemioogical research.

There's no debate in the governments complicity in criminal activity. That's why I gave the summary which does prove manipulation of evidence from government officials and pharm reps.


The paper uses OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS to prove this from a brave Doctor who understand what he's up against. You want to continue to ignore those facts and believe the (by logic) manipulated propaganda towards an inoculation you may (if not likely) not need, well then caveat emptor.



Bear in mind there's plenty of evidence that shows many of the vaccines being forced on the public are ticking time bombs meant to instill sickness during the hormonal changes of old age.

Bear in mind a lot of that evidence was gotten the same way this paper got its evidence, through official documents from FOIA requests.


Sometimes the evidence that some vaccines made by some pharm companies are harmful comes from test cases and concession from the U.S. guv. Like this:



U.S. Government Concedes That Mercury Causes Autism


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...es-autism.aspx


Rolling Stones Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote an article detailing the governments role in concealing data and preventing families from suing the companies.


35 years ago, Autism was at a ratio of 1 in 25,000. Now its 1 in 75. Let the debate go on about the direct cause, there's probably more than one but it would be foolish to discount vaccines as a whole. Not when in 1983 children received 10 vaccinations before attending school. Today they receive 24 vaccines before the age of 1, and 36 by the time they attend school. And that’s not including the recommended seasonal flu shot each year.


Vaccines as theory and practice are fine. It's the corruption that belies the science and doesn't allow it to move forward properly. There's simply too many hands on the pot now and something other than health is driving the push to expand the mandated inoculations.



You may not be familiar with the eugenic aspect to all this. Once one is, the battle at the ground floor becomes clearer.

[Trotskilicious]

official documents made official by a government that lies to us, right?

just keeping track here

so what does that make the official documents, are they lies or not? I mean if the government is in on the conspiracy of the true ishtarian snake overlords then if they release a document that reflects something you think is true then that suddenly makes it true or what

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by duovamp

If he is a troll, then we should not respond to him.

If he is not a troll, then zero outside information has ever convinced him his theories are wrong, which means you will not affect his views no matter what you say, and therefore we should not respond to him.

that's a lot of hot air wrapped in bullshit.


There is no theory in criminal conspiracy and I just provided EVIDENCE of conspiracy regarding vaccines. Evidence of conspiracy with government officials and Pharmaceutical companies for 30 years.


not only, if I ever present a theory I present it as just that. Not truth. Theory. It's you jump-to-conclusion dumbasses that assume I believe it all. that's not my philosophy as I've explained ad nauseum...hence the thought of creating my own FAQ page.

[Trotskilicious]

also if they're practicing eugenics then why are autism rates going up, doesn't that mean they fucked up real bad and they aren't the all-knowing lucepharian spacejews from another dimension that can see in 5 dimensions TIME CUBE MICROPENIS