Mr Khan said:
JazzB1987 said:
starcraft said:
Vaccinations do not cause autism. There is no credible evidence of any kind to suggest that modern vaccinations cause anything like autism.
Refusing to vaccinate your children without a valid medical reason is selfish, cruel and utterly illogical. |
How does that reply make any sense at all.
First off all show me how vaccination has no negative impact on our bodies. then give me a credible source on that and if you find something then give me evidence that that study was NOT paid by a loby etc.
(same logic as your "no credible evidence of any kind....")
Then how is that cruel selfish or utterly illogical. A doubt is a valid reason
Everyone knows that vaccination does do harm AND good. (As do blood transfusions that cause cancer and thrombosis) So even being ill for 2 weeks thanks to the vaccine (which is not rare at all) is a good enough reason to not give that shit to kids especially when there is more tan 1 type of vaccine for the same flu/ whatever and you only have access to the shit-tier one.
E.g. The german government and the Bundeswehr got "highend vaccine" the population got the crappy one and you could not at all get the one politicians or soldiers got.
Also in case of flu etc. If you get vaccinated but I dont then you have no risk at all. No person that gets it has any risk at all. Only the people that dont want that crap will suffer. And if people would have a brain shit like a flu would not even spread.
Sneeze into your shoulder/armbit instead of your hands.
Dont touch your mouth or nose and if you do just use the back of your hand.
Wash your hands.
Dont go out when you know you are ill
Do a japanese "hello bow" instead of giving hands.
Wear this
Every kind of flu or whatever would just die out if people would stop spreading it for a month or so. We should educate people isntead of giving them crap.
Even my sister (who is a nurse) is idiotic and tells her little kids to put their hands in front of their mouths when they sneeze or cough.....
|
The bolded i take issue with, as it allows skeptics to continuously move the goalposts. No study is ever too independent, yada yada...
|
I agree but asking for evidence that proves something is not healthy makes absolutely no sense. Thats why I demanded evidence for the exact opposite thing.
If there is two groups that have contradicting studies. Which one can lose the most by failing or gain the most by succeeding? I automatically take that groups "facts" with a grain of salt.
Like the suggar/sweetener industry/lobby/government and their ban on stevia in europe.
Sweeteners are not healthy at all but they keep selling that shit because they said "Give us 100% evidence that it is unhealthy if you cant and even 1% still says using sweeteners is NOT risky at all we will keep selling it"
At the meantime they blocked stevia from entering the european market for decades! because "as long as 1% of the studies show it might be risky to eat/consume stevia it will stay illegal because we want to PROTECT the people"....
Double standards....
