Does it do harm to opt to stop having your child vaccinated?

[Sweetwater14]

Sweetwater14, Your agenda is clear. Your sources are biased. Your mind is closed.

Do you have any credible sources—say a peer-reviewed journal of the stature of Pediatrics—that come even close to challenging the findings of that publication? I can answer that for you; what you have are discredited, defrocked individuals such as Dr. Wakefield, who has lost his license to practice medicine. The fact is, you have no authoritative sources. The claims they make have been proven wrong ad infinitum. You are right about one thing: My agenda IS clear. I want to save children's lives and to safeguard public health and well-being. Making vaccination non-mandatory is a blueprint for the emergence of epidemics of childhood diseases nationwide. You do know, don't you, about measles and Disneyland?

There are obviously greater risks to vaccination than you assert. You steadfastly refuse to recognize or consider them.

Ah contrae, I clearly state that no vaccine is risk free. When you write "greater risks" you seem to refer to the incidence of occurrence, which is false. Serious, life-threatening reactions are, as noted in the article, "extremely rare."

Reactions can go far beyond a "sore arm and redness at the injection site." You ignore references to the Vaccine Court and the decisions showing significant harm done to many.

The definition of "many" depends on the totality of the population of which "many" is alleged to be a part. It turns out that your "many" is a fraction of a fraction of the number of people who have been vaccinated.

You and the "expert" pediatricians also ignore the CDC's comments about potential vaccination side effects, which are and have been life-changing and severe for many.

Please see my comment preceding this one. Also, what leads you to believe that pediatricians are not experts in preventing and treating childhood diseases?

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whether or not to give vaccinations to children must not be by rote but by individual choice. Period.

Children do not receive vaccines "by rote"; rather, they receive them through a well-conceptualized, proven strategy to protect public health and welfare. That strategy has been validated time and time again.

[Kent]

Do you have any credible sources—say a peer-reviewed journal of the stature of Pediatrics—that come even close to challenging the findings of that publication? I can answer that for you; what you have are discredited, defrocked individuals such as Dr. Wakefield, who has lost his license to practice medicine. The fact is, you have no authoritative sources. The claims they make have been proven wrong ad infinitum. You are right about one thing: My agenda IS clear. I want to save children's lives and to safeguard public health and well-being. Making vaccination non-mandatory is a blueprint for the emergence of epidemics of childhood diseases nationwide. You do know, don't you, about measles and Disneyland?

The only reference I have ever given was this. Is that not authoritative enough for you? There are many authoritative sources which you refuse to acknowledge because they conflict with your agenda.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are just a few more authoritative sources which you will never bother to read or acknowledge:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878266/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25377033" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697751/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... cid.ciu105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_cir ... _ii_pi.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_cir ... uad_pi.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation ... ytable.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your intentional and persistent ignorance of the extent of negative side effects along with the strident call for mandatory vaccination is both astounding and suspicious. Troll on.

[dconrad000]

"How decadent our society has become -- people selling their souls for Big Pharma's lie, that they will save us, if only we will inject into ourselves and our children, their evil, toxic witches brew, complete with dead, murdered baby parts."

[dconrad000]

You may prefer to call it cells, rather than tissue. It still amounts to dead, murdered baby parts, regardless the semantics.

Human Diploid Cells (which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) = ABORTED FETAL CELLS!!!

link: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/conten ... evelopment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Partial list of ingredients (including Human Diploid Cells which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) in Vaccines from the CDC’s own website:

…with the disclaimer, ... "efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, but manufacturers may change product contents before that information is reflected here”. In other words, you never know what really may have made its way into these veritable “witches brews”.

link: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbo ... able-2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dconrad000]

So that the crux of the matter is not buried and forgotten, I will repost this comment that was directed towards Sweetwater14, from time to time.

So you admit that you know that dead, murdered baby parts indeed have been used to manufacture and are contained in vaccines, and yet you continue to defend them and advocate that they be injected into the population. Very telling, indeed.

[dconrad000]

Sweetwater14: You can throw me in a fiery furnace before I will ever allow you or anyone like you to inject me or any of my family with your evil, aborted-fetal-cell-containing witches brew -- which is vaccines.

[Sweetwater14]

Do you have any credible sources—say a peer-reviewed journal of the stature of Pediatrics—that come even close to challenging the findings of that publication? I can answer that for you; what you have are discredited, defrocked individuals such as Dr. Wakefield, who has lost his license to practice medicine. The fact is, you have no authoritative sources. The claims they make have been proven wrong ad infinitum. You are right about one thing: My agenda IS clear. I want to save children's lives and to safeguard public health and well-being. Making vaccination non-mandatory is a blueprint for the emergence of epidemics of childhood diseases nationwide. You do know, don't you, about measles and Disneyland?

The only reference I have ever given was this. Is that not authoritative enough for you? There are many authoritative sources which you refuse to acknowledge because they conflict with your agenda.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are just a few more authoritative sources which you will never bother to read or acknowledge:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878266/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25377033" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697751/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... cid.ciu105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_cir ... _ii_pi.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_cir ... uad_pi.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation ... ytable.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your intentional and persistent ignorance of the extent of negative side effects along with the strident call for mandatory vaccination is both astounding and suspicious. Troll on.

I commend you (your personal attack notwithstanding) for the effort you have made to validate your case. Let's take a close look at your links, beginning with the cdc.gov link, which is above all the others. It lists possible side effects from vaccines. It notes "for the most part these are minor" and that "vaccines are constantly monitored for safety." It adds, which is telling, "a decision not to immunize a child also involves risk and could put the child and others who come in contact with him or her AT RISK OF CONTRACTING A POTENTIALLY DEADLY DISEASE" [caps added]. I find that less than supportive of your position.

Now, to the other links, which I will identify as "a," "b," etc.

Link a, published in Translational Neurodegeneration (not exactly a star in the journal genre), presents an article indicating there is evidence for an association between vaccine containing Thimerosal and autism spectrum disorder. Translation: There may be an association but we can't say so with certitude.

Link b states that "the reason for the rapid rise of autism in the U.S. that began in the 1990s is a MYSTERY" [caps added]. It adds that "further study into the relationship between the vaccines and autism is warranted." That statement (or similar wording) appears in many of your links. The authors reach no conclusion other than to call for more study. I am less than impressed.

Link c (PubMed) accuses the CDC of deliberately omitting information about the age a child is vaccinated and the risk of autism. (Need I say that it has since been proven [see more earlier post] that vaccines do not cause autism.)

Link d claims errors were made in research that purports to show thimerosal in vaccines is safe. I suspect the CDC has a credible rebuttal to that claim. Moreover, it's my understanding that mercury has been removed from thimerosal, though I need to fact-check that.

Link e indicates that safety information for universal hepatitis vaccine is mixed. It also indicates that the risk is limited to vaccinations performed before 1999. (This will be, I assume, of interest chiefly to medical historians.)

Link f is a duplication of Link e.

Link g states that exposure to Al contained in vaccines MAY [caps added] be related to neuroimmune disorders, adding "a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted." Do you find a conclusion here? What you find is the need for more investigation.

Link h states that B-Lymphocytes in a population of children with autism exhibit hypersensitivity to thimerosal. Conclusion: "Certain individuals with mild mitochondrial defect MAY [caps added] be highly [vulnerable] to . . . toxins like the vaccine preservative thimerosal. (Well, gee, they could be or they couldn't be.)

Link i discusses the occurrence of measles among people previously vaccinated. Conclusion: "This outbreak [Disneyland] underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status." (Makes sense to me.)

Link j provides a list of precautions to take in using measles vaccine. (The manufacturer/researchers are being ethical and complying with FDA requirements.)

Link k provides prescribing information for ProQuad vaccines. It also lists warnings and precautions. Isn't that what any responsible manufacturer of virtually any product would do, including, ah, "Big Pharma"?

Link l presents a vaccine injury table listing injuries from certain vaccines as well as how long it takes for symptoms to appear.

Nice try, Kent, but I find your list less than persuasive and certainly—as a group—short of the quality and stature of Pediatrics, which offers definitive conclusions.

[Bee Prepared]

Pro-vaccination advocates who focus on correcting misinformation reduce the controversy to merely an “educational” problem.

But what about clinical observation? If you are the parent or grandparent and have watched your child scream for hours or collapse, twitch and jerk, or regress physically, mentally, and emotionally, and become a totally different child in the days and weeks after vaccination? Is this to be
discounted? Even though when parents do the observing most doctors dismiss what happened as "anecdotal evidence or a "coincidence" that has no value at all.

What you witnessed happen to your child after vaccination does have value because your child's life has value. Don't let a doctor or anyone else bully and shame you into being afraid to talk about what you saw happen after vaccination, especially if your child is now chronically ill or disabled and has been diagnosed with learning disabilities; ADHD; epilepsy; autoimmunity; autism or communication, developmental or disruptive behavior disorders; asthma, allergy or other brain, and immune system dysfunction.

Most people who question vaccine safety are very intelligent, and understand the difference between good science and bad science.

[Sweetwater14]

Pro-vaccination advocates who focus on correcting misinformation reduce the controversy to merely an “educational” problem.

But what about clinical observation? If you are the parent or grandparent and have watched your child scream for hours or collapse, twitch and jerk, or regress physically, mentally, and emotionally, and become a totally different child in the days and weeks after vaccination? Is this to be
discounted? Even though when parents do the observing most doctors dismiss what happened as "anecdotal evidence or a "coincidence" that has no value at all.

Obviously, it is not to be discounted. I have expressed to you sympathy for what you endured. It must have been difficult beyond description. When you say, however, that "most doctors dismiss what happened as 'anecdotal' evidence or a 'coincidence,' you are expressing an undocumented opinion. That may have been the case with your doctor(s), but you cannot say, with credibility, that it is true of "most" doctors.

What you witnessed happen to your child after vaccination does have value because your child's life has value. Don't let a doctor or anyone else bully and shame you into being afraid to talk about what you saw happen after vaccination, especially if your child is now chronically ill or disabled and has been diagnosed with learning disabilities; ADHD; epilepsy; autoimmunity; autism or communication, developmental or disruptive behavior disorders; asthma, allergy or other brain, and immune system dysfunction.

I don't think you should allow a doctor or anyone else " bully and shame you" under any circumstances.

Most people who question vaccine safety are very intelligent, and understand the difference between good science and bad science.

There is probably some truth to that, but I doubt they listen to Dr. Mercola or subscribe to Natural News. Rather, they go to established, reliable, respected sources for their information, even though they may not agree with some of it.

[Bee Prepared]

How about a quote from C.S. Lewis?

Because they are right and those who appose them are wrong. As CS Lewis states, “omnipotent moral busybodies…torment us for our own good” and will “without end…do so with the approval of their own conscience”. Add to the above the fact that they have vested interest in the vaccine paradigm, you soon discover that common sense inevitably and ultimately takes a back seat to their ego and greed, hence you have your reasons why they (most doctors) remain silent.

[Kent]

Nice try, Kent, but I find your list less than persuasive and certainly—as a group—short of the quality and stature of Pediatrics, which offers definitive conclusions.

I appreciate that you are at least willing to read the links and to dialog. Be assured, however, that there are far more studies and links available than these which question the "indisputable validity of vaccination effectiveness." Providing them will obviously not change your mind. Any open-minded person can do their own research.

The point is that Pediatrics is NOT the ultimate and definitive source of truth on this matter, and there are valid and authoritative reasons and studies to dispute the conclusions of those who deem all vaccines to be safe and effective. Unlike those physicians (not unanimous, by the way) and individuals who call for mandatory vaccination without exception, both drug companies and government scientists admit that there are individuals who should not receive the vaccinations, and that the vaccines themselves deserve further study.

I was pro-vaccination. After much study, research and personal experience, I am not. Many others are not either. I oppose mandatory vaccination. Even though you think that your sources are conclusive, and the final word on the matter, they are not. Period. We will have to agree to disagree. What we will never agree upon is mandatory, forced vaccinations that may be and in many cases are harmful. The affect on individual lives can be and have been profound and permanent. End of discussion.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-p ... al-masters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sweetwater14]

Nice try, Kent, but I find your list less than persuasive and certainly—as a group—short of the quality and stature of Pediatrics, which offers definitive conclusions.

I appreciate that you are at least willing to read the links and to dialog. Be assured, however, that there are far more studies and links available than these which question the "indisputable validity of vaccination effectiveness." Providing them will obviously not change your mind. Any open-minded person can do their own research.

I did not find in the links you provided evidence suggesting that they question the "indisputable validity of vaccination effectiveness." What I found, with some exceptions, were statements calling for more research and conclusions that were at best hedged.

The point is that Pediatrics is NOT the ultimate and definitive source of truth on this matter, and there are valid and authoritative reasons and studies to dispute the conclusions of those who deem all vaccines to be safe and effective. Unlike those physicians (not unanimous, by the way) and individuals who call for mandatory vaccination without exception, both drug companies and government scientists admit that there are individuals who should not receive the vaccinations, and that the vaccines themselves deserve further study.

I have not said that the journal Pediatrics is the "ultimate and definitive source of truth on this matter . . . ." (those are your words). What I have said (or at least suggested) is that Pediatrics is a model of professional, credible medical research reporting. I have further suggested that, with few exceptions, anti-vaccination publications fall short of that model.

I was pro-vaccination. After much study, research and personal experience, I am not. Many others are not either. I oppose mandatory vaccination. Even though you think that your sources are conclusive, and the final word on the matter, they are not. Period. We will have to agree to disagree. What we will never agree upon is mandatory, forced vaccinations that may be and in many cases are harmful. The affect on individual lives can be and have been profound and permanent. End of discussion.

End of discussion? Not quite. Your statement that in many cases mandatory vaccinations are harmful is flat-out false; you have no supporting documentation from a credible source for that statement. None. If the anti-vaccination cabal had prevailed, the lives of 732,000 children would very likely not have been saved. I cite a statement by the CDC: "732,000 children's lives have been saved in the past 20 years due to routine vaccinations . . . . In addition, 322 million cases of kids getting sick were prevented." The CDC statement adds: "About 79 million U.S. citizens were born during the study period, and each was saved from 4 infectious diseases, on average, thanks to vaccination . . . . The numbers show that national immunization programs have been successful in saving hundreds of thousands of lives. . . ." (The data are in an article entitled "Vaccination Has Saved 732,000 Children's Lives Since 1994," written by Bahar Gholipour, and published in the April 24, 2014 issue of live science.) The number of children's lives reported to have been saved varies, depending on the source (which may prompt some quibbling), but it is undeniably monumental. It is not a stretch to say, as Bill Gates has said, that those who oppose mandatory vaccinations could be, at least in some measure, responsible for the deaths of the children who were not saved.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-p ... al-masters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kent]

End of discussion? Not quite. Your statement that in many cases mandatory vaccinations are harmful is flat-out false; you have no supporting documentation from a credible source for that statement. None.

And how do you determine the validity of those made-up statistics that you quoted? Assumptions at worst or statistical projections at best.

End of discussion=end of our discussion. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. Troll on.

[Sweetwater14]

End of discussion? Not quite. Your statement that in many cases mandatory vaccinations are harmful is flat-out false; you have no supporting documentation from a credible source for that statement. None.

And how do you determine the validity of those made-up statistics that you quoted? Assumptions at worst or statistical projections at best.

End of discussion=end of our discussion. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. Troll on.

Claiming that the statistics I posted are "made up" is, I suppose, as face-saving way as any to throw in the towel.

[Bee Prepared]

There is always an end,

This is the basic rule which negates the narcissism involved in continuing to argue for reasons other than edification.

[Sweetwater14]

There is always an end,

This is the basic rule which negates the narcissism involved in continuing to argue for reasons other than edification.

Forgive me, but what does your second sentence mean?

[Bee Prepared]

What I mean is, you have achieved no interest in your pro-vaccine stance. Not one person has agreed with you,
therefore perhaps that the points you make are redundant. Perhaps you would like to read other posts on different subjects?

ed·i·fi·ca·tion


/ˌedəfiˈkāSHən/


noun
formal

noun: edification


The instruction or improvement of a person intellectually.

[Sweetwater14]

What I mean is, you have achieved no interest in your pro-vaccine stance. Not one person has agreed with you,

You're correct—not one person but dozens of qualified, credentialed, experienced medical doctors, medical researchers, medical laboratories, and esteemed journals have agreed with me (as is evident based on even a glancing look at my sources). And who has agreed with you? The disesteemed, discredited, disenfranchised likes of Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Mercola, and, of course, the prestigious Natural News.

Something else you might want to consider: Few authentic experts are willing to devote computer time to a proposition that prima facie is an
exercise in inanity . . . tantamount to arguing that if you live in Utah, the sun rises in the west.

therefore perhaps that the points you make are redundant.

Some anti-vaccine folks appear to be slow learners.

Perhaps you would like to read other posts on different subjects?

Because your argument has been deconstructed inside and outside, day and night, up and down, and east/west/north/south, if I were you I would be inclined to make the same suggestion.

[Bee Prepared]

:)) Slow learners?

I won't say that about you because its not nice, and I think you are a nice person in reality. Certain subjects bring out contention, but is not
necessarily what the person is all about.

[gruden2.0]

One thing I've always found curious is how many pro-lifers have never made an issue about how some vaccines are cultured in stem cells and tissue from aborted fetuses. I'm not interested in being injected with residual aborted fetal tissue, thanks. (Or aluminum, or aspartame, or mercury, or formaldehyde, or...). Many vaccines treat our bodies as toxic waste dumps.

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeN ... issue.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sweetwater14]

One thing I've always found curious is how many pro-lifers have never made an issue about how some vaccines are cultured in stem cells and tissue from aborted fetuses. I'm not interested in being injected with residual aborted fetal tissue, thanks. (Or aluminum, or aspartame, or mercury, or formaldehyde, or...). Many vaccines treat our bodies as toxic waste dumps.

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeN ... issue.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much (if not most) of what you present as fact is incorrect. I don't blame you for that because it appears you are new to this thread. I'll be happy to help you separate fiction from fact if you're interested. Let me know.

[gruden2.0]

One thing I've always found curious is how many pro-lifers have never made an issue about how some vaccines are cultured in stem cells and tissue from aborted fetuses. I'm not interested in being injected with residual aborted fetal tissue, thanks. (Or aluminum, or aspartame, or mercury, or formaldehyde, or...). Many vaccines treat our bodies as toxic waste dumps.

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeN ... issue.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much (if not most) of what you present as fact is incorrect. I don't blame you for that because it appears you are new to this thread. I'll be happy to help you separate fiction from fact if you're interested. Let me know.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not new to the topic of vaccination. The list of vaccine ingredients are culled from what the producers list on the vaccines themselves, and I haven't seen any evidence of an attempt to hide the fact that many vaccines are cultured from aborted fetal tissue. I find it curious your post runs counter to what is so openly available. It's all there for anyone who cares to look.

[Bee Prepared]

One thing I've always found curious is how many pro-lifers have never made an issue about how some vaccines are cultured in stem cells and tissue from aborted fetuses. I'm not interested in being injected with residual aborted fetal tissue, thanks. (Or aluminum, or aspartame, or mercury, or formaldehyde, or...). Many vaccines treat our bodies as toxic waste dumps.

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeN ... issue.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much (if not most) of what you present as fact is incorrect. I don't blame you for that because it appears you are new to this thread. I'll be happy to help you separate fiction from fact if you're interested. Let me know.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not new to the topic of vaccination. The list of vaccine ingredients are culled from what the producers list on the vaccines themselves, and I haven't seen any evidence of an attempt to hide the fact that many vaccines are cultured from aborted fetal tissue. I find it curious your post runs counter to what is so openly available. It's all there for anyone who cares to look.

Go "gruden2.0"

[Sweetwater14]

One thing I've always found curious is how many pro-lifers have never made an issue about how some vaccines are cultured in stem cells and tissue from aborted fetuses. I'm not interested in being injected with residual aborted fetal tissue, thanks. (Or aluminum, or aspartame, or mercury, or formaldehyde, or...). Many vaccines treat our bodies as toxic waste dumps.

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeN ... issue.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much (if not most) of what you present as fact is incorrect. I don't blame you for that because it appears you are new to this thread. I'll be happy to help you separate fiction from fact if you're interested. Let me know.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not new to the topic of vaccination. The list of vaccine ingredients are culled from what the producers list on the vaccines themselves, and I haven't seen any evidence of an attempt to hide the fact that many vaccines are cultured from aborted fetal tissue. I find it curious your post runs counter to what is so openly available. It's all there for anyone who cares to look.

Go "gruden2.0" [/quote]

Inevitably, you will find that for which you are looking. Stay tuned.

[dconrad000]

Governments Hire Web Trolls to Sway Public Opinion
Hiring paid shills to propagandize for the establishment is a common practice


http://www.infowars.com/governments-hir ... c-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s an admitted fact that governments [and corporations] around the world hire armies of shills to troll comment sections of news websites and social media with pro-establishment propaganda in an attempt to sway public opinion.