Post links to people that provides credible evidence on whether or not Vaccines provide immunity to viruses, and if they cause harm. This includes links to websites, articles, study papers, video's, blog's, and most importantly, the people who did the work. For example: youtube.com/watch?v=HplGfFlf-fE
Important Questions: Do Vaccines prevent people from contracting the disease? > If they do, what is their success rate?
Is the Vaccine worse than the disease it's meant to protect against? > What are the chances of you or anyone else from contracting the disease?
What are the chances of survival for those who are Vaccinated v.s those who aren't? And which are more likely to contract the disease? > For you to Vaccinate, the benefits need to outweigh the drawbacks.
The evidence needs to be strong enough so that if someone died, we would not assume that it was because they weren't vaccinated.
If we can modify disease burden by changing the environment and how we interact with it (the way we live and work) then why do crazy things like alter everyone's genetics all at the same time?
Gabriel Hughes
If you register on Trello, you'll be able to post these recommendations (In the form of 'cards') on the appropriate board. > Add this onto the facebook URL, after the .com /trellotheworldasweknowit/posts/1712498955689340
Can you show something that holds up against the allegations that the manufacturers of vaccines sell products that they know are harmful and make profit even they're fined?
>Can you disprove an allegetion Except you give me an example, then no. That's not how logic works.
Mason White
Since OP opens with the false premise that there actually is a case against, I'm going to tentatively conclude that this is a troll thread, hide it, and move on.
Blake Barnes
A false premise that there is a case against vaccination? > Didn't you even look at the video.
Matthew Martinez
You provided an article that described the benefits of Vaccines. I posted something that changes that outcome (The allegation or fact that manufactures make profit even if they're fined).
That's how an argument works.
David Lee
did you even read that article you linked? it's about marketing practices. it doesn't support your post in the slightest.
Evan Foster
Yea, about a fucking schizophrenia drug... How doed that relate to vaccines? Or am I suppose to give you irrefutable evidence that big pharma are people who can we always trust? Because no one can give you that sort of evidence besides a meta analysis showing it's almost never the case. You retard.
Cooper Roberts
These responses are ....confusing.
Firstly, the article that talks about marketing practices contains proof that AstraZeneca made a profit on Seroquel, despite having been fined. It shows that 'big pharma' as you put it, can sell you something that they know will do more harm than good, and not only get away with it but also make a considerable amount of money from it. This gives us a reason to be critical of the Vaccines that pharmaceuticals make. In America, these corporations have even less reason to produce safe vaccines because the 1986 law (trello.com/c/gav9GMPD/26-1986-law-absolving-vaccine-manufacturers-from-liability) absolve them of responsibility.
Even if you have no interest different opinions, you can still view their content with the goal of refuting their claims. youtube.com/watch?v=zAXQJiPcPJY
Asher Evans
You are generalizing and speculating. I can't completely refute anything that is just speculation as I myself not know evidence for or against. It's like saying, x thing did y, x CAN also do z then x will do y. But again, what we know is that you are more likely to die if you are not vaccinated than develope autism (even if there is no evidence of one causing the other). Because we are in the realm possibilities (as non experts of a field), statistical thinking is currently the only practical way to be "safe" of something. >BUT BIG PHARMA DOES SHADDY SHIT Yea, being sensible about health doesn't equate with sucking corporate dick. I'm sure that there are plenty of ethical doctors that know their shit and can inform you about shit. Also, don't assume everyone is American.
Gavin Morris
X will do z*
Jose Sanders
>Firstly, the article that talks about marketing practices contains proof that AstraZeneca made a profit on Seroquel, despite having been fined. It shows that 'big pharma' as you put it, can sell you something that they know will do more harm than good, and not only get away with it but also make a considerable amount of money from it. That's a complete misrepresentation of the events in the article. The article is about AstraZeneca being fined for advertising for a non-approved use of Seroquel. That does not mean that all of Seroquel's profit came from this unapproved use, and it doesn't mean that the unapproved use does more harm than good. You are just making giant irrational leaps towards the conclusion you want to reach. That's not critical thinking.
Also, this study that you refer to. You say we're more likely to die than get autism as a result of vaccination. Is this because there's no evidence of vaccines causing autism?
We share links with each other, perhaps because we feel obligated in regards to the benefits we could bring. However, when there's such a huge incentive to skewer the opposing opinions, how do we know whether they're credible or not?
>Also, I don't want to ask doctors about fecal matter.
Cooper Lee
Thanks for pointing it out, but this 'business strategy' is still a real thing and was used as an example of how corporations that make your vaccines, value money more than your well-being. Although, that already goes without saying.
It's a reminder to question their 'products'.
Joseph Sanchez
>It shows that 'big pharma' as you put it, can sell you something that they know will do more harm than good No, it doesn't show that at all. It shows that AstraZeneca had an illegal kickback scheme to get doctors to prescribe their drug.
Hudson Cooper
You mean like all companies? Your argument is basically "companies' goal is to make money, therefore they can be accused of anything which makes them money." The problem is you haven't actually shown that vaccines are more harmful than beneficial.
Henry Cooper
>tfw caught herpes from my vaccinations years ago
Fuck vaccines and fuck doctors
Henry Hill
I came here asking you for links. I could post them, but I get the impression that not many even bothered to look at the fist video. I, however, did have a look at the link I was provided. Even though it was very brief. I'll post another in case your curious. youtube.com/watch?v=zncuOv9VBxw
Tyler Hughes
I hate the way this faggot writes, but all the evidence that completley disptoved your link is there. docbastard.net/2016/05/124-papers-that-do-not-prove-vaccines.html?m=1 As for tge cdc thing, it had nothibg to do with autism, but side effects (like tics), which shows corruption and malpractice but it takes a huge logical leap to then say you shouldn't vaccinate your child. This latter shit I will give you a link later cause im in class.
Elijah Morris
>This latter shit I will give you a link later
Is this 'ebonics'?
Blake Hill
This doesn't refute the FACT that vaccines work. All you did is show that there are malafide medicin and vaccine producers. So go fight the big pill. But stick with the facts.
