Big Pharma Ties Want to Shut Down Vaccine 'Conspiracy Theories' - Page 2

[In Exile]

Hm, the funny thing is online you can find all the SAME studies that Doctors, the CDC everyone uses-you can read the same stuff that was once accesable only to a select few- or, since I am in a silly mood today, "the Pen is mightier than the sword", ahem. Knowledge is power- nobody has learned anything since Galilei either. "We say what is true and you better believe it."

[Ophelia]

Originally Posted by CanidFL

I didn’t think that was possible…the mercury would kill the live virus. Where did you read that? I am very interested.

Neither did I, do you remember reading anything about it in Evidence of Harm?

http://spectrumpublications.com/inde...thor=bfischkin

I don't remember if it was the Geirs or Boyd Hailey - but I do remember Liz Bert reporting (before she died) that they/he had tested vials of the MMR - and found that thimerisol was indeed there. I just remember her haunting post saying "It's in there".

So I'm thinking there may be something on SafeMinds about this. Not sure.

Dear Readers
Just wanted to clarify that while we don't believe Thimerosal has actually been put into MMRs, trace amounts have shown up in CDC reports, including one obtained by Spectrum. One very plausible explanation is that there was some industrial contamination from equipment that had been in contact with Thimerosal.

Soooo, if there were indeed MMR's that were contaminated, that means the virus may have gotten killed and the vaccine did nothing except potentially cause side effects. Nice!

[Deborah]

My favorite bit about the authoritative government web sites is how they work it: do as we say, not as we do.

Here is an example from insidevaccines, one of their CDC critique articles:
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...we-are-stupid/

Why else would the CDC supply the parents of America with dumbed down information that contradicts their very own guidelines on how to distinguish trustworthy information from mere opinion? Here are the guidelines from the CDC on evaluating information found on the Internet.

The CDC on trustworthy information.

What is the scientific evidence for claims made? The original source of facts and figures should be shown. For example, the Web site should provide citations of medical articles or other sources of information. You should be able to distinguish facts from opinions. Also, facts are more reliable if they come from a published scientific study on humans rather than from unpublished accounts or from reports of a single person or of animal studies.

When it comes to information for parents, the CDC motto is clearly: “Do as I say, not as I do.”


Click to see the pages that tell parents: “What Would Happen if We Stopped Vaccinations”

Here is a sample quote:

In the U.S., up to 20 percent of persons with measles are hospitalized.

Reference to scientific evidence? Original source of facts and figures? A way to distinguish facts from opinions? Did this statistic come from a published scientific study?

Page after page of frightening statements about death and disease and not a single citation. Nary a reference to be seen.

Crazy

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by Deborah

My favorite bit about the authoritative government web sites is how they work it: do as we say, not as we do.

Yeah, at least the UK's version of The Pink Book has some citations for some statistics... once in a while.

[Deborah]

Well the CDC pink book does have some references. But how many parents are going to track it down? The pages for parents are up front and obviously what they want us to read.

I'm just sort of...well...upset when someone says that you shouldn't trust anything on medical stuff which lacks references and then proceeds to put up about 40 pages worth of pro-vax stuff with not a single reference. Don't they read their own instructions?

[Jaysfamily]

Why does our government think it's their job to hold our hands with every move we make? This is just becoming ridiculous. I'm really scared for the future of freedom in the US. Leave us alone, and let us decide for ourselves. Really, our government was intended to be set up so that we tell it what to do, and not the other way around!

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

Unfortunately for them the gig is up. The worm has already turned. They just don't know it yet. Of course, this will all get very interesting when they are running around with their needles trying to poke someone and people are all hiding or just laughing.

There will be laws in place that will make us use any vaccine at their whim. Unfortunately. If you don't, you will be working against the homeland and will be an enemy of the state. This is no longer a joke. It is fact.

Originally Posted by Yulia_R

After all, we live in free country and our government takes a good care of us, right?? :

I know it is not what you believe, but many people do. It is has been an illusion that is quickly waning even for those people. But unfortunately much too late.

Originally Posted by CarsonBookworm

Now if only some disgruntled bigPharma employee would come on out and spill the beans on them....that would make my year!

There are many book written by disgruntled or mea culpa big pHARMa employees. But unless they have their own printing press and pr, how is it going to get to market? A few of those books are out there though. I just read one but it is not being translated into English.
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press.

Originally Posted by mamadelbosque

They aren't going to shut them down folks. The W3C is just considering adding a layer of 'trustability' to the web -

That's how it will start...
I read somewhere that Canada's largest cable Internet provider wants to experiment with selling their Internet service, in the same way they sell the TV service.
You would pay a flat rate for basic Internet sites and a premium price for any more sits. Additionally there would be a pay per view for sites that are not listed.
How many blogs, forums, chats... do you think they'll list?
And now much do you want to pay to participate/search for any?
That is just one example of how they can reign us in very easily.

Originally Posted by peainthepod

The internet is too vast and too autonomous to be "shut down" in the way that I think many people fear..

They have managed just fine in China.

Originally Posted by Pirogi

Aren't there other, more sinister sites that "they" should worry about? Like terrorist sites, child pornography sites ...

That is how they will sell us their new program for the Internet II.
So the more of those sites there are, the easier is will be to convince us. All they need to do is create more of "those" sites that we all agree on are BAD.

Originally Posted by Jaysfamily

Why does our government think it's their job to hold our hands with every move we make?

Don't forget, surveillance is a two way street. They are keeping tabs on us and now the Internet has enabled us to keep an eye on them. The second part is what they are worried about. NOT YOUR SAFETY AND YOUR WELFARE. That is just another illusion.

They also do not worry about 1% of people who don't vaccinate as long as we keep those numbers down and don't tell. But the Internet allows us to expose what is in the vaccine, what harm it does, how much money they are fleecing us of, how corrupt the whole program is, how lax in safety, on and on... That is what they want to stop.

We are not supposed to know about any government or governing body corruptions.