manitoban said:
Odyssey said:
Aragorn said:
On the other hand, the most loud bullies are more or less pathological, so debating with them, and showing your true colors would not be wise, I guess.
Yes. Arguing with someone and trying to get them to see the light only leads to people clinging even more strongly to their beliefs. Needing to shout your beliefs in peoples' faces only reveals the shakiness of your beliefs and your own insecurity. So not getting drawn into a public debate can be a wise move. What you share with close, personal friends and family who know what you know is another story.
I agree. I've found the bottom line is that they simply do not want to know, and no evidence you could provide would change their views. I tend to keep a low profile regarding my son's vaccination status, as there is no need to provoke attack from the pro vaxxers, who absolutely won't listen to reason anyway.
I too, have been disappointed in friends who I had thought would know better, but it really is a good litmus test! On the other hand a few people I would never have expected to have actually surprised me by seeing the light. It seems to me that at the moment there is obviously a big push going on for mandatory vaccinations, YET at the same time, the info of the dangers of vaccines is also slowly but steadily coming out, hence the desperate push to enforce them legally.
Noticing the recent media propaganda push, I suspect they're soon going to introduce a new scare of a pandemic (Zica virus?) so that they can sell a new vaccine.
Just thinking out loud here, but the main arguments of the authoritarians seem to be:
1)
Herd immunity: the unvaccinated are a danger to the whole population, since they keep the disease alive and thus infect others. The bullies go even so far as saying how anti-vaxxers are murderers, since their actions (not vaccinating) kill innocent children.
Interestingly, this logic includes the admission, that vaccines do not give 100% protection, as does natural immunity by having the disease the natural way. Otherwise, the vaccinated wouldn't be in any danger. This is even stated by the vaccine manufacturers. The manufacturers also admit that the vaccines are effective only for some years (this they measure by the level of antibodies), ca 3 years, some say even under a year. This is of course good for business, since everyone needs booster shots for the rest of their lives. However, by logic, this means that there's no way - even if everyone would be 100% willing to take all the shots - that the whole population would have "active immunization", since no one can say for sure how long the protection by the vaccine lasts. Thus, even the pro-vaxxers, who take their shots, are "murderers" at some point in their lives.
Another thing they forget however, is that even if you're vaccinated, you still carry the virus/bacteria and thus you can infect others. And it also seems quite clear after reading the literature is that "stirring up" antibodies by vaccines and adjuvants isn't anything close like the normal immune response. The human immune system is a complicated process, that includes many "programming" events and not just one type of "killer cells". The vaccines often only include a part of the disease, or it's deactivated (by e.g. formaldehyde), and the important part of the immune defense, the gut, is bypassed.
The counter argument they provide for this is that "in real life you also can get infected by a scratch from a rose thorn, which is the same thing as getting an injection". This sounds like a compelling argument, but I'd say that getting microbes directly into your bloodstream is always bad, be it the natural or artificial way. Plus, a rose thorn probably will not have all those other chemicals in it (or even several different types of viruses like in many vaccines).
The original idea of herd immunity, if I remember correctly, was that if a certain percent of the population gets natural immunity against the disease, then the disease will not spread anymore and ultimately it will disappear. I haven't yet found a good comparison of this original idea, and the idea of vaccination providing herd immunity, but the evidence supporting the pro-vaxxers seems quite shaky. Also, it might just be, that actually it is the vaccines that keep all these disease strains alive.
Lastly, regarding this point, I come to think of how the pro-vaxxers have a mindset of "eradicating every bug in the world". As I understand it, humans are practically "built from bugs", our whole body is bugs. Some bugs are good, some bad, but we can never - and nor should we - get rid of all the even slightly bad ones. I guess it's like with STS and STO: there must exist both sides, how else could the immune system train itself? As the C's pointed out, the root of the problem is toxicity of the body and the mind. When we are clean, both physically and mentally, we can easily coexist with and suppress the bad bugs (sometimes we might nee a little help by supplements, herbs) - at least the natural ones originating from Earth ;)
2)
The medical experts know best, we all should trust them. A layman can and should never try to know better than the experts.
The absurdity of this argument is clear for all of us here, there's no need to explain it. However, for an authoritarian follower this is God's word.
There's a lot more than these points, of course.
and all manner of 'foreign proteins' which could be anything. The ingredients that are listed on the vaccine inserts are bad enough. I shudder to think of all the crud that they don't even think to test for.
