Originally posted by tomtom232 My nephew wasn't circumsized. He ended up getting a nasty urinary tract infection (he's ok now) that the doctor said would have been unlikely to occur if he had been circumsized.
you should've taken him to a more educated doctor.
Originally posted by twhitehead OK, I over exaggerated. However, it is a fact that a lot of people would die if we stopped vaccinating.
[b]vaccination involves taking a perfectly healthy baby in injecting it with numerous toxins. I know what it involves. What it results in, is significant protection against some of the worlds most deadliest (and sometimes incurable) diseases.[/b]
with the amount of money we invest in vaccinations and subjugating the underdeveloped world to our drugs, we could instead use that money to improve their living conditions and reduce the chance of disease. it would save countless more lives than "vaccinations" allegedly do.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit with the amount of money we invest in vaccinations and subjugating the underdeveloped world to our drugs, we could instead use that money to improve their living conditions and reduce the chance of disease. it would save countless more lives than "vaccinations" allegedly do.
I don't believe you know what you are talking about. Are you being honest, or is this just your attempt at creating a challenging debate topic out of nothing?
Originally posted by twhitehead I don't believe you know what you are talking about. Are you being honest, or is this just your attempt at creating a challenging debate topic out of nothing?
You mean ALL vaccinations or just the relevant ones for your particular child?
Originally posted by twhitehead I don't believe you know what you are talking about. Are you being honest, or is this just your attempt at creating a challenging debate topic out of nothing?
what you believe is irrelevant. for one example, the amount of money spent on controlling 'malaria' through vaccinations could be spent on building proper sewage and water treatment facilities and preventing malaria from the source.
no need to mess around with dangerous toxins and viruses in secret laboratories. who know what they will brew one day, by accident or on purpose, and unleash on the unsuspecting global population.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit for one example, the amount of money spent on controlling 'malaria' through vaccinations could be spent on building proper sewage and water treatment facilities and preventing malaria from the source.
You don't even know what malaria is. Not only does it have nothing whatsoever to do with sewage, but there isn't yet a working vaccine. The best prevention method found so far is treated mosquito nets. If however a vaccine is successfully developed it will almost certainly be the most cost effective and most effect overall method of dealing with malaria.
no need to mess around with dangerous toxins and viruses in secret laboratories. I am not aware of dangerous toxins or secret laboratories being involved in any way with vaccines. And malaria itself is not a virus, but I suppose a vaccine might involve one.
who know what they will brew one day, by accident or on purpose, and unleash on the unsuspecting global population. I really don't know where you are getting this from. Are you trying to copy RJHinds?
Originally posted by twhitehead You don't even know what malaria is. Not only does it have nothing whatsoever to do with sewage, but there isn't yet a working vaccine. The best prevention method found so far is treated mosquito nets. If however a vaccine is successfully developed it will almost certainly be the most cost effective and most effect overall method of dealing with malaria.
you are right and wrong. i was thinking of cholera. my mistake in calling it malaria. but you are wrong in that malaria has a lot to do with open sewage. open sewage is a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
I am not aware of dangerous toxins or secret laboratories being involved in any way with vaccines.
it is up to you to get acquainted with the dangers of the biotech industry.
here is an introduction.
http://www.aquarianonline.com/Sci-Tech/Steele_Biotech.html
that article refers to this mice contraceptive vaccine research done by an australian biotech firm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/doomsday.cfm
I really don't know where you are getting this from. Are you trying to copy RJHinds?
Originally posted by VoidSpirit you are right and wrong. i was thinking of cholera. my mistake in calling it malaria. but you are wrong in that malaria has a lot to do with open sewage. open sewage is a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
Opens sewage is not a significant factor when it comes to mosquito breeding grounds.
it is up to you to get acquainted with the dangers of the biotech industry.
here is an introduction.
http://www.aquarianonline.com/Sci-Tech/Steele_Biotech.html
that article refers to this mice contraceptive vaccine research done by an australian biotech firm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/doomsday.cfm Interesting that the two articles refer to the same case and that case involved neither secret laboratories nor dangerous toxins. You are acting like a typical creationist. I still think you are trying to copy RJHinds.
Originally posted by twhitehead Opens sewage is not a significant factor when it comes to mosquito breeding grounds.
it is up to you to get acquainted with the dangers of the biotech industry.
here is an introduction.
http://www.aquarianonline.com/Sci-Tech/Steele_Biotech.html
that article refers to this mice contraceptive vaccine research done by an australian biotech firm
h toxins. You are acting like a typical creationist. I still think you are trying to copy RJHinds.
um yeah, i did state that the steele article referenced that particular research, and it was meant as an introduction.
however from your response, it appears that you haven't read david steele's article.
you either have an interest in this or you don't. at the very least, try not to cop out of it by referencing rjhinds.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit .... and it was meant as an introduction.
In other words you cant actually back up your claim of "dangerous toxins and viruses in secret laboratories".
you either have an interest in this or you don't I seem to already know a lot more than you do. First you mistook malaria for cholera, then you have talked about cholera in relation to vaccines, although as far as I know there is no vaccine and probably no vaccine research either because it is a bacterial disease that can be treated with anti-biotics.
You have also yet to provide any evidence that vaccines are not cost effective.
You also asserted that improving living conditions reduces the chance of disease. Can you name the diseases that are prevented by vaccines that spread significantly less amongst the rich?
Originally posted by twhitehead In other words you cant actually back up your claim of "dangerous toxins and viruses in secret laboratories".
[b]you either have an interest in this or you don't I seem to already know a lot more than you do. First you mistook malaria for cholera, then you have talked about cholera in relation to vaccines, although as far as I know there is no vac ...[text shortened]... the diseases that are prevented by vaccines that spread significantly less amongst the rich?[/b]
I do believe the innovation of sewage systems and the wide spread use of soap has been cited as major causal factors in regard to the rising life expectancy during the Victorian/Edwardian period in the UK.
Originally posted by kevcvs57 I do believe the innovation of sewage systems and the wide spread use of soap has been cited as major causal factors in regard to the rising life expectancy during the Victorian/Edwardian period in the UK.
But does this involve any of the diseases that vaccines prevent?
16 Jul '12 17:35
Challenging debate topic
Back to Top