Replies

> Why should we believe them? <

I did a quick Google search of some of the named doctors. They seem to be anti-vaccers in general. Maybe they’re spot-on. Who knows? But I’d believe them as much as I’d believe a panel of pharmaceutical industry doctors. Everybody seems to have their own axe to grind on this issue.

I would be really nice to see an honest discussion between medical professionals - the pro-vaccine folks debating the anti-vaccine folks. But if there has been such a discussion, I haven’t seen it.

I would be really nice to see an honest discussion between medical professionals - the pro-vaccine folks debating the anti-vaccine folks. But if there has been such a discussion, I haven’t seen it.
_________________________________
Nobody can speak with authority at this point when we have just begun test trials. We now have, perhaps, the largest human drug test population ever assembled in history. Let’s hope after five years or so that the results are overwelmingly positive.

I would be really nice to see an honest discussion between medical professionals - the pro-vaccine folks debating the anti-vaccine folks. But if there has been such a discussion, I haven’t seen it.

excellent point

If our government wanted us to be fully informed about the C-virus, they would have told us information such as now many amplifications were used on the tests and statistics showing which comorbidities are associated with poor outcomes once infected, etc. Instead it's been hiding the facts and talking politics all the way.

I did a quick Google search of some of the named doctors. They seem to be anti-vaccers in general.

Here's the problem with any attempt at serious discussion these days: two extreme poles are defined in any subject, and then people are pigeon-holed into one pole or the other. And I believe this is by design, a method to prevent any honest and useful discussion of ANYTHING.

With regards to the vaccine issue, it seems that the propagandists have managed to define the two poles as pro-vax or anti-vax. Even if you are someone who wholeheartedly accepted the value of every vaccine until the Chinese Kung Flu COVID crap, but now balk at the idea of experimental vaccines being disseminated globally, you are an "anti-vaxxer!!!! OMG!!!!" which is an emotionally pre-conditioned knee-jerk reaction specifically designed to discredit anyone who might dissent from the current experiental vaccine push.

Even before the Chinese Lung Herpes fiasco, there were many medical professionals who were uneasy about the sheer number and bundling of vaccines given to newborns today as compared to, say, 40 years ago, that might be contributing to medical issues, including autism. These medical professionals were not against vaccines as a whole, but only the manner in which they were administered, and yet we STILL saw cries of "anti-vaxxer! anti-vaxxer! OMGZZZZ!" everywhere, inclduing here on FR, because so many people have been dumbed-down to where they can only see one extreme or another. You are either on one team or the other and there is no middle ground.

This method of disruption of honest discourse is not limited to vaccines, by any means. I have seen it used against virtually every subject of substance.

You won’t see any debate because it’s been shut down by powerful forces like the CDC, Fauci, the World Economic Forum and the big tech oligarchs and media, none of whom were ever elected by we the people. You are not even permitted to mention certain words, let alone debate them. There will be consequences if you do. They have spoken. There will be no readily available, cheap and effective remedy like Ivermectin. Everyone will receive a vaccine and a digital passport which will hold every transgression you have committed against their perfect global society.