Have you all seen the Rob Schneider video? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 10:39 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


Something tells me we are probably pretty different.... smile.gif

I think the things the government keeps from us are more along the lines of secrets that protect our national security, or secret military technologies, or secret weapons and not so much " lets murder and cripple thousands of children for money and not tell anyone and try to get every country on the globe in on it!"

Call me crazy I suppose...

 

Please cite where someone in this thread said the bolded. 

Mirzam likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#32 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 10:59 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
 

 

I also find it interesting that when I point out Rob Schneiders lack of qualifications in legal analysis, autism, and vaccination.  it is considered an "Ad hominem" attack.  Yet if I posted a twenty page cited referenced paper by Paul Offit a physician with countless accomplishments and qualifications in medicine and immunology and infectious disease it would be discounted off hand by saying "of course he would support this he is Dr. "PROFfIT and he has a nice house. and makes money. 

One of your first lines in your first post on this thread was "I think it is a diatribe from a comedienne who believes that vaccines are a conspiracy"  That is name calling, and as such is an ad hominem attack.

 

To the best of my knowledge, Rob Schneider has done two videos on vaccine issues - one where he was annoyed by the state of California trying to to make it mandatory that all parents get a doctor to sign off on going non-vax, and this one, where he is the spokesperson for a video from the Canary Party on how Vaccine court works.

 

To the best of my knowledge he has said nothing "conspiracy theory" like, and you really should back up your claims if you are going to say stuff like that.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#33 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 11:27 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)

dbl post


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#34 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 11:31 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

You are very zen.

 

I just think it is quite funny some throw out the word conspiracy theorist for years for questioning vaccines, while they themselves are questioning the judicial process.

 

Of course, they were wrong to equate questioning of vaccines to conspiracy theorists, and they are not conspiracy theorists to question judicial decisions.

 

I can't off the top of my head think of any examples of people throwing "conspiracy theorist" just for questioning vaccines, but I'm certainly willing to believe you've seen it - people miss-use language all the time.  

 

Doesn't change the fact that to be a conspiracy theory you must have, well, a conspiracy. 

 

Believing that vaccines cause autism and the government/doctors/whoever are wrong in thinking it doesn't because they've made mistakes in their science or haven't done enough studies or they've jumped to erroneous conclusions is not a conspiracy theory - being wrong is not a conspiracy.  Believing that the government/doctors/whoever know full well that vaccines cause autism but are turning a deliberate blind eye to it out of support of big pharma or for kickbacks, or worse, that they are helping big pharma deliberately make people sick so they can make even more money selling drugs to help with the illnesses they caused is a conspiracy theory. 

 

Technically, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it isn't true - there have absolutely been real conspiracies about which there were theories. I do not know of anyone who would deny that when there are well known conspiracies that are well proven and widely known to have happened.  The term "conspiracy theory" is a bit of a pejorative these days, people don't tend to use it for theories of conspiracy that they think have merit, but rather for those that they think are irrational or ludicrous or straight out made up.  For instance, there is a theory that there was a conspiracy between Merck executives and some researchers to falsify data on mums efficiency, but I wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory because it is entirely possible/plausible.  On the other hand, there are theories that Bill Gates is part of a conspiracy to commit genocide by vaccine, or that fluoride is added to water supplies to deliberately dumb down the populace in order to make them easier to control, and I'll bring out the term for that.  

 

Did you watch the full video railing against those skeptics who are too quick to label any idea they don't like a conspiracy?  Or just the beginning?  I was rather shocked when they got to the part of providing an example of a conspiracy that skeptics are too quick to dismiss and not only did it turn out to be a 9/11 truther conspiracy, but it was one of the flimsiest ones out there.  The entire second half of the video is devoted to the idea that the BBC was somehow involved in a conspiracy to coverup the truth about building 7's collapse. 

 

What happened is that on 9/11 building 7 was damaged by the collapse of the twin towers..  A fire burned uncontrolled in it for several hours, and the building could be seen shifting and making groaning noises.  Emergency personal were pulled from the area out of concerns that the building was going to collapse and reporter were reporting that the building might collapse or was about to collapse... all except the BBC which reported that it already had collapsed twenty minute before it actually did, including showing a reporter saying that it had collapsed while standing in front of a live feed of the building billowing smoke but still standing. 

 

To 9/11 truthers, this is more evidence that the US Government and the British and whoever had a script as to how the day was supposed to go.  Either the BBC was in on it and reported it because they knew the buliding was supposed to have been demolished by then and hadn't noticed they were behind schedule, or they were told it had been by someone who was in on it and now are helping cover-up by not revealing who lied to them. 

 

To everyone else the most logical explanation is that the BBC goofed.  They got a report of the building showing signs of imminent collapse and, on a day where there was only one story being told, probably the biggest any of the reporters involved would ever tell, when there is a huge amount of pressure to be the first to get new information out there and be the news source that is really on the ball and be the one that people who want to be absolutely up to date should listen to rather than just reporting what other new sources have already said, in a day of massive confusion as to what is going on a people at the scene are pretty busy trying to deal what's going on, they manged to mistakenly report that the building had actually collapsed? 

 

Occam's razor and all, to me clinging to the entirely implausible belief that the BBC (and other new sources) were all in on a government conspiracy or involved in covering up when there is such a simple, reasonable, entirely plausible explanation for the early report is the perfect example of an appropriate time to use "conspiracy theory" in a dismissive manner.  

 

The video is here, for anyone who hasn't watched it yet:  http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/fake-skeptics-conspiracy-theorist-slur.html

teacozy likes this.
pers is online now  
#35 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 11:49 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

OT, but if people believe the offical story of Building 7, then it would be the first ever building collapse of a steel high-rise, and since for that matter. Occam's razor, how likely is that? That's all I am saying about 9/11.

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#36 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 12:02 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
"Believing that the government/doctors/whoever know full well that vaccines cause autism but are turning a deliberate blind eye to it out of support of big pharma or for kickbacks, or worse, that they are helping big pharma deliberately make people sick so they can make even more money selling drugs to help with the illnesses they caused is a conspiracy theory. "

This.

And I have seen many many NVers on this forum say precisely this.

Here's a thread started by Taximom for example : http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1369352/evidence-of-govenrment-cover-up-re-vaccines-and-autism

And here's another thread about the UK government covering up about vaccine hazards : http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1375562/30-years-of-secret-official-transcripts-show-uk-government-experts-cover-up-vaccine-hazards

And here's a thread asking if anyone believes there is a conspiracy by the government about vaccines
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/782926/vaccines-vast-conspiracy

The question asked was " Does anyone here believe or suspect that vaccination is part some conspiracy to alter us and our kids in some way? Or any other conspiracy theory regarding vaccines, such as population control?"

Some responses....

"...I do believe that there is a ton of detrimental information about vax's out there that is overlooked/covered up by pharma and the government just to keep the money rolling in."

"Yup. I believe there's something to those theories. I don't discuss it openly much though cuz you tend to look nuts, KWIM? But the strangest things are usually rooted in fact & I do think there's fact in most of the theories. No, I don't care to elaborate. "

"Yes. :" by Mirzam

" Yes I do."

That's on the first page. And this is more a response to Kathy who asked where people have ever said these things. While not specifically in this thread I have seen these theories by many members of this forum..

And here's a thread started by you, Kathy, asking if people believed the CDC are liars and the responses are overwhelmingly that they are deliberately lying/deceiving the public.

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1381761/do-you-think-the-cdc-lies-do-you-think-they-are-a-good-source

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#37 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 12:15 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

Again, so what teacozy. We are perfectly entitled to an opinion that the the government and its agencies are withholding information (Simpsonwood anyone?). Your posts seem to be implying we are nut jobs, and that the vocal pro-vaxers are the only sane people on this board. Not cool.

dinahx and BeckyBird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#38 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 12:38 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

OT, but if people believe the offical story of Building 7, then it would be the first ever building collapse of a steel high-rise, and since for that matter. Occam's razor, how likely is that? That's all I am saying about 9/11.

 

You know what else is a first?  A building built the way it was sustaining that sort of damage (firefighters on scene report seeing twenty-story hole in it) and then a prolonged fire.  Which is probably why there aren't structural engineers and demolition experts standing up in droves to support the idea of conspiracy.  Also, don't forget all the emergency responders on scene make the reports of the building groaning and bulging and other signs that led the fire departments to decide it was about to collapse and pull people out - or were they all in on it?  See this for how it may have happened:  

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

 

Now, getting back to the topic:  

 

The video says there is a problem with lawyers not being paid for prolonged periods of time, sometimes ten years.  If that is common, then yes it is very wrong and needs to be fixed.  I'm certain there are other thing that need fixing - the process in't perfect. 

 

However, the video doesn't bother to mention that even if you lose your case, the court still pays the lawyer, so you don't need to let fear of being left with nothing but a huge stack of legal bills if you lose stop you from filing. It also doesn't mention that if you lose, you have the option of turning and appealing in a normal court. 

 

I did not know about the department of health and human services holding vaccine patents.  Now I am curious - for which vaccines?

 

While there are aspects that need improvement, I agree with the idea of the national vaccine injury compensation act. 

 

To my understanding, it is meant to deal with the "unavoidably unsafe"  aspects of a vaccine. When we know that there are risk to a vaccine, but the risk of not vaccinating is even greater so we vaccinate anyway, how is that the fault of the manufacturer?  If the manufacturer was sued anytime someone suffered one of the rare serious complications of the MMR, and also anytime anyone suffered an unfortunate event that could possibly be blamed on the MMR even when it had nothing to do with it, then they would quit making the vaccines and we'd get measles and mumps and rubella back.  Most people would be just fine after a week or so of misery from measles and mumps and just a bit sick from rubella. But...there will be the odd serious case leading to brain damage or deafness or sterility or permanent lung problems or birth defects or even death.  Who are those people going to sue?  Who is going to pay for their care and long term loss of income, etc?

 

Like I said, it's my understanding that this is for the "unavoidably unsafe" (yet still safer than disease) aspects of vaccines.  If it is a case of true negligence or fraud from the manufacturer, would't that go through regular courts, such as is currently happening with Merck being accused of fraud as to the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine?

crayfishgirl likes this.
pers is online now  
#39 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 01:13 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)

We are allowed to believe that the North Korean government is bad, the Nazis were evil, Stalin was bad, Lenin was bad, Saddam was bad,  Osama Bin Laden was bad, Nigeria and Liberia are corrupt, etc. We are allowed to openly examine the corruption and crimes against humanity of many other nations.......EXCEPT the USA. And England. And Canada. Our countries are off limits, because they are incapable of any wrongdoing.  Our countries are only filled with honest, holy folks who could never do anything wrong. You see, our governments would NEVERRRRR be involved in crimes against humanity, because our governments are made up of better people!!

If you are one of those conspiracy theorists who think the good ol' USA government might have done something wrong,  you should be ridiculed at every opportunity!

 

 

I have a problem with the revolving door politics. It blurs the lines between government and industry.  I find it difficult to distinguish between an honest policy and a "lobbied" policy.  Simple as that,  a lack of trust in the system.  How do you trust a system when big, powerful business have their workers inside the government? And the government is the watchdog for those businesses?  Do you expect me to believe there are absolutely no cases of wrongdoing, coverups, and corruption, when the system is foolproof and whistleblowers are never heard?  

 

 

 


               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#40 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 01:36 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)

And since YOU brought up the subject of 9/11, which is very near and dear to my heart, I couldn't let this opportunity pass. I normally don't talk about 9/11 because it produces the same effect as talking about Nazis--instant thread derailment!!!  But the anniversary is tomorrow, and while most people think about it once in a while, I happen to think about 9/11 every single day. 

 

Now, the NIST report was authored by a handful of people, who decided the official story of 9/11: the Trade Towers fell due to structural damage from the planes.  No investigation into possible explosives, although there was evidence. Since when does an investigation rule out certain possibilities before it even begins?

Quote:

NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.
 
Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’

While NIST declared the case closed, there happen to be over 2000 architects and engineers who have a problem. You see, they think NIST was wrong, and that the buildings--including Building 7, ultimately fell due to explosives. They want to open a new investigation into their claims, because as you know, there was never any investigation into the possibility of explosives.

 

Are these 2000+ architects and engineers also conspiracy theorists? Because they disagree with your government, does that mean they are wrong? They have examined the same evidence as the NIST authors, but have come to a very different conclusion. Are the NIST authors correct, and why? Are they correct because they support a story that you believe? Are the 2000 architects and engineers incorrect because they support a story you do not believe?

 

We can talk about this more via PM if you don't want to litter the forum with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Mirzam and applejuice like this.

               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#41 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 01:43 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

We are allowed to believe that the North Korean government is bad, the Nazis were evil, Stalin was bad, Lenin was bad, Saddam was bad,  Osama Bin Laden was bad, Nigeria and Liberia are corrupt, etc. We are allowed to openly examine the corruption and crimes against humanity of many other nations.......EXCEPT the USA. And England. And Canada. Our countries are off limits, because they are incapable of any wrongdoing.  Our countries are only filled with honest, holy folks who could never do anything wrong. You see, our governments would NEVERRRRR be involved in crimes against humanity, because our governments are made up of better people!!

 

 

 

That's a straw man.  See genocide of Native American's, slavery, British imperialism, manifest destiny, Canadian residential school system, War in Korea, War in Vietnam, Saddam may be gassing his own people but he doesn't like Iran so hey we must be friends and give him weapons, oh wait now he's an evil dictator so let's go to war and make the lives of his people better by throwing them from the frying pan into the fire, medical experiments on orphans and prisoners, guantanamo bay, waterboarding, etc. etc. etc. 

 

I have faith in our democracy and checks and balances/separation of power and freedom of speech to get us back on path of good when we stray from it so long as we pay attention to history and learn from it.  I don't pretend we don't have evil in our past though, and while we've come a long way from the our past, that we still don't do bad things.   Weapons of mass destruction, anyone?  I'm certainly no fan of Bush. 

 

Just because it's not impossible that we could do horrible thing doesn't mean we do these particular horrible things. My main point of disbelief is not so much that they'd never do it as that they'd pull it off.  The more people you have involved, the hard it is going to be to keep it a secret, and these conspiracies would have taken large numbers of people to pull it off. 

 

ETA: one point I meant to make in my previous post but forgot is the focus of the original "conspiracy theory" video was not how the building collapsed or how we are capable of evil but just that the BBC reported the building had collapsed before actually did is damning evidence that something fishy must have been going on, and people who can't accept that are just too closed-minded. 

pers is online now  
#42 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 02:48 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Narrator or not they are also Rob Schneider's beliefs which he has outlined repeatedly. He has been very vocal about his views that vaccines are dangerous and causie autism and that the government. Also statying that he is a comediene is not attacking the man it is rightly attributing his profession to him.

As for the video it is not sourced at all, the individuals listed as having a part in it are not legal scholars or analysts they are also not doctors or scientists. They are activists who dislike vaccines. As for the specifics of the video:

The first 15 seconds: Indicate that in thrity years the vaccine schedule has tripled and the autism rate has skyrocketed. SO? Both things can be true and have squat to do with each other. Many things have happened in the past thirty years (Wi fi, cell phones, the use or organic food, and notably a change in the number of things we call autism)...Just because two things happen to increase over 30 years doesn't mean they are connected.

Then a report that YES dozens of studies indicate autism and vaccines are linked. No mention of who authored them, whether or not they have been retracted from the journals, nor what the journals are that they were published.

45 seconds in out right lie: the Us government admits that vaccines are unsafe. No they don't. Acknwoeldging that something is not without risk is not saying that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

at the minut emark we hear about "Eric" a child with vaccine induced autism". Hold the phone. I am watching a video called "do vaccines cause autism" and I now am asked to just take for granted that this child has vaccine inducted autism. Although there is nothing provided to show how this happens, any mechanism or anything else. The main crux seems to be that he has to go to vaccine court rather than sue civilally and how unfair that is. Not mentioned is that if he sued civially you STILL have to show a medical link between autism and vaccines not just say it is so. Also missing is that 20% of medical malpractice claims in civil court are successful and recover damages, whereas 40% + of claims in vaccine court are compensated. Also you want to talk about unfair advantage? I would rather go up against a governemtn civil servant than the caliber of attorney legal teams a pharmaceutical company could afford to pay for.

And the discussion of it not being fair that the special master's are not judges and are appointed by the government. Well judges are also appointed by the government and paid for with government money as well. This is jjust a semantic issue. Much discussion about the incriminating documents that are being withheld again without mention of what they are.

Then discusses because this isn't a "real court" they have contradictory rulings. UHM...court have contradictory rulings all.the.time. to evidence this They mention the Bailey Banks where the vaccine court ruled that the MMR causes autism. NO not true. The vaccine court found that Bailey Banks suffered Acute Disseminates Encephalyts (ADEM) which can be caused in rare instances by natural measles, mumps, ruebella or yes the vaccine to prevent it as well. The vaccine court indicated that it was caused by the vaccine and rightly compensated (had he not gotten the vaccine and contracted measles which caused ADEM he would have just been out of luck). They also indicated that YES Bailey Banks had Pervasive Developmental Delays. PDD at the time was not Autism. And if we are now going to say that all pervasive developmental Delays are Autism and all brain injuries are autism then a host of things are going to be linked to Autism and we are never going to know the etiology of classic autism. This is part of the problem, starting to call more and more things Autism is muddying the waters to find the cause and to treat. So now that is just dishonest to say that the vaccine court ruled that vaccines caused autism.

Lastly we hear about how the Government is out to get little Eric. That he "didn't have a chance" because the government has attorneys on the payroll and they are trying to keep the vaccine court from compensating children. Who is the source of this ? Erics Mom, whom again we have no information on her sources for how she comes to the conclusion that the governmetn is colluding the prevent children from being compensated.


So in sum, this does not have much bearing on my thoughts because (1)I don't care much about what celbrity views are, (2) this is not referenced or cited as to the qualifications of those making the claims (3) in a cursary watching I can find factual inaccuracy like the case of Bailey Banks and (4) it is overly simplistic without looking at the other side like the regular court cases being less likely to be compensated than vaccine court.
prosciencemum likes this.
Dakotacakes is offline  
#43 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 06:30 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The video loses a ton of credibility right off the bat by stating upfront that vaccines causes autism, which is completely untrue.  I'll watch the rest of it, but that certainly does make me question why it matters that VAERS prevents people from suing...they shouldn't sue, anyway, for something that never happened.

applejuice likes this.
moderatemom is offline  
#44 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 06:35 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

The video loses a ton of credibility right off the bat by stating upfront that vaccines causes autism, which is completely untrue.  I'll watch the rest of it, but that certainly does make me question why it matters that VAERS prevents people from suing...they shouldn't sue, anyway, for something that never happened.

 

There is a lot wrong with this post, but I  will start by saying you might want to double check your acronym….

Mirzam and applejuice like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#45 of 47 Old 09-10-2013, 06:58 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

There is a lot wrong with this post, but I  will start by saying you might want to double check your acronym….

 

 Kathy, you are so helpful. Thank you!

 

The video loses a ton of credibility right off the bat by stating upfront that vaccines causes autism, which is completely untrue.  I'll watch the rest of it, but that certainly does make me question why it matters that VAERS NCVIA prevents people from suing...they shouldn't sue, anyway, for something that never happened.

applejuice and prosciencemum like this.
moderatemom is offline  
#46 of 47 Old 09-12-2013, 09:08 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
" Why the Latest Video from the Canary Project is Misleading"

Here's a very informative and thorough explanation on why the video is wrong and misleading.

http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-national-vaccine-compensation.html

The post is very well organized and not inflammatory to non vaxxers at all.

I'm curious to see what you guys think of her points. Obviously a lot of you will disagree with the autism part but other than that what do you think?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#47 of 47 Old 09-12-2013, 09:35 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh well, I forgot that as long as blogger Liz Ditz has debunked a study, I need to throw it in the trash! There is credible evidence for Vax induced encephalopathy, which both sides agree on. In fact, that has been noted since very early in the Vax program. IMHO Thimerosal, especially prenatal exposure, has not been proven SAFE IMO.

The idea that the NVICP is a 'compromise' reminds me about the fable of two wolves & a lamb 'compromising' on tonight's dinner.

Based on the rest of Pharma history, I find the threat that 'they would just stop making vaxes' so incredibly ridiculous & hollow. Guess what is still on the market? Thalidomide, they just changed the indications. Guess what else is still on the market? Accutane. If we allowed for regular, open court proceedings, I think there would just be tighter controls on Vax admin & things like 'we can't find the records, so let's reVax your child' would happen less often.

Putting Pharma on the Honor System, with no liability & no consequences has never before worked in history for any major industry, but it is supposed to work now?
Mirzam, applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
dinahx is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off