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

Alternative/natural solution-based discussions of topics like health, medicine, science, food, etc.
Sweetwater14
captain of 100
Posts: 112

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

Post by Sweetwater14 »

Bee Prepared wrote:Well, well, how are you sweetwater?


Image
Please initial-cap the first letter on sweetwater, and fix the wording on the poster to read He's Back (a contraction of He Is). Hes is the plural form of He. So how many hes are back? ;)

Bee Prepared
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2536

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

Post by Bee Prepared »

" Sweetwater14"

He's back, welcome back!

Now, back to the discussion, I am right and you are wrong, simple as that. Discussion over! :D

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote:Human Diploid Cells (which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) = ABORTED FETAL TISSUE!!!

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;

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote:
dconrad000 wrote: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.
dconrad000 wrote: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.

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote:
This is the film that first woke me up to the true horrors of abortion. I saw it off-campus, while attending BYU in 1985. It is a film that everyone should see -- especially those who might ever consider participating in an abortion. As with the business of vaccinations, and the use of anti-depressant medication -- true informed consent has never been a part of the business of abortion.

This film was produced by a repentant former abortionist. An honest doctor now telling the truth, that has done immeasurable good by having the courage to come out with this film in 1983.

...from the caption below the video:

ABORTION - THE SILENT SCREAM COMPLETE VERSION (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown:

VHS/DVDs Available
American Portrait Films
Call 1-800-736-4567
http://www.amport.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This has been performed as asked. This video is perfectly legal.

The Silent Scream Complete Version - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.

Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion.

Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus.

Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion.

Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

The Silent Scream

...to view it fullscreen, use this link:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... UJQxDXqb0s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

______________________________________________

...related...more concerning the ugly truth of the use of aborted fetal tissue (as in vaccines)...


Aborted Babies Are Being Chopped Up And Sold To Researchers
Mar 20, 2012 ... Did you know that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to medical researchers all over America?


http://www.infowars.com/aborted-babies- ... istration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


...So aborted baby parts from American babies will continue to be very quietly sold for profit to medical researchers and most Americans will never hear anything about it. But future generations will look back in horror at what we allowed to be done right under our noses...

...But the harvesting of tissue and organs from aborted babies is definitely not new. It has been going on for a long time.

For example, a recent article posted on worldmag.com describes the very big business that the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle does in aborted baby parts….

It’s known within the research community as a top government distributor of fetal tissue. Last year the Puget Sound Business Journal stated the lab “in 2009 filled more than 4,400 requests for fetal tissue and cell lines.”...

...Once again, it is supposed to be against federal law to buy aborted baby parts from abortion clinics. But this “problem” is avoided by taking advantage of the loophole that allows for “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”

An article posted on LifeDynamics.com describes how this system works….

1) A baby parts “wholesaler” enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly “site fee” to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts. In most cases, this retrieval agent is an employee of the wholesaler. In other instances, the retrieval agent is a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler.

2) The buyer – usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency – supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted.

3) When such orders are received by the wholesaler, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via FedEx, Airborne or a similar common carrier.

4) These parts are “donated” by the clinic to the wholesaler who turns around and “donates” them to the buyer. The buyer then “reimburses” the wholesaler for the cost of retrieving the parts.

In the end, nobody is technically “buying or selling” anything but they all get what they want and a lot of money changes hands.

A number of years ago an abortion industry insider came forward with shocking details of how this organ harvesting operation actually functions. The following is from a very eye-opening InvestigateDaily article….

It was an interview that shocked America. An Insider, spilling the beans on massive malpractice to a reporter on ABC’s 20/20. Only this time, it wasn’t Big Tobacco in the gunsights, it was the US abortion industry, exposed as harvesting the organs from aborted babies. According to former abortion clinic technician Dean Alberty, clinics were harvesting eyes, brains, hearts, limbs, torsos and other body parts for sale to the scientific market: laboratories wanting to test new drugs or procedures, or researchers trying to find the causes of genetic disorders or discover new ways of treating disorders like Parkinsons.

Sometimes babies actually survive the initial abortion procedure and workers actually have to kill the babies themselvesbefore harvesting the organs….

Alberty worked for a Maryland agency called the Anatomic Gift Foundation, which essentially acted as a brokerage between universities and researchers seeking body parts, and the abortion clinics providing the raw material. Alerted by the clinics about the races and gestations of babies due to be aborted each day, AGF technicians would match the offerings with parts orders on their client lists. Alberty and his colleagues would turn up at the abortions that offered the best donor prospects to begin dissecting and extracting what they needed before decay set in.

“We would have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go in…[to] procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceuticals and universities were looking for. Then we would go and look at the particular patient charts—we had to screen out anyone who had STDs or fetal anomalies. These had to be the most perfect specimens we could give these researchers for the best value that we could sell for.

“We were taking eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, and especially cardiac blood…even blood from the limbs that we would get from the veins” he said.

Alberty told of seeing babies wounded but alive after abortion procedures, and in one case a set of twins “still moving on the table” when clinicians from AGF began dissecting the children to harvest their organs. The children, he said, were “cuddling each other” and “gasping for breath” when medics moved in for the kill...

...“I was in the scrub room when I saw the towel move,” says Harrah. “A nurse said, ‘Eric, you’re just tired. It’s three in the morning.’ Then we both looked and a little baby’s arm raised up out of the towel and was moving like a newborn baby. I screamed and ran out. The doctor came in and closed the door and when we went back in to process the baby out of the clinic into the lab, [the baby] had a puncture wound in his chest.”


In the United States, trafficking in baby parts for profit is a criminal offence. But to get around the problem, universities and researchers pay a fee – not for the parts themselves but for the “cost of extraction”. Thus, there are different fees depending on the amount of work involved. And shipping and handling is extra...

You can read the rest of that shocking article right here [see link above to original article for live reference links].

So are you sick to your stomach yet?

This is a hard article to write, but the American people need to be confronted with the truth. If we ignore the horrors going on right under our noses, then that would make us just like so many of the other nightmarish societies throughout history that we rightly condemn.

Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize that large numbers of consumer products on our supermarket shelves contain ingredients which have been cultivated using aborted human fetal cell lines.

This information is not hard to find.

But people do not like to talk about it.

There are price lists for human fetal tissue all over the Internet. You can find one example right here.

So does it bother you that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to researchers all over America?

Or are you perfectly fine with it?...

Image


Image


______________________________________________

...also related...


The Shocking Face Of China’s Brutal One Child Policy - March 29th, 2012
Paul Joseph Watson | Can’t happen here? Top academics and eugenicists are calling for what Obama’s science czar once advocated.


http://www.infowars.com/the-shocking-fa ... ld-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


This is the shocking face of China’s brutal one child policy which many academics and pressure groups are now calling to be imposed in the west – the image shows a 9 month old baby lying dead in a bucket, forcibly aborted by Chinese family planning authorities in the town of Moshan, Shandong province.

Because the parents of the baby already had a child, they were hunted down and forced to comply with China’s draconian one child policy. The mother was injected with a poison that induced an abortion, but after the baby was “pulled out inhumanly like a piece of meat,” it was still alive and began to cry before doctors slung the defenseless child into a bucket and left it to die.

The time stamp on the image tells us the baby was killed on Monday. The image began circulating today on Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, which has around 260 million members. The story has attracted widespread revulsion directed against the family planning authorities responsible for the murder of the baby.

China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization. In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.

In one case in 2009, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.

“According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.

“The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor...

Image


.

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by 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."

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote: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.


User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote: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-tissue-containing witches brew -- which is vaccines.

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote: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.
dconrad000 wrote: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.

User avatar
Army Of Truth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1828
Location: Rivers of Babylon
Contact:

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

Post by Army Of Truth »

Sweetwater14 wrote:
Army Of Truth wrote:
Sweetwater14 wrote: It happens virtually without exception. In a debate of this nature, the losing side does one of two things: 1) slumps away, lacking the courage to admit defeat (and never to be heard from again); or 2) resorts to using name-calling/put-down name-labeling ("a paid shill") when referring to an opponent. I have never been guilty of that offense on this thread. (BTW, aren't there rules on this site against that kind of abuse?) That is what's happening here, and it's understandable; i.e., unable to win the argument on points, the anti recourse is to attack the opponent personally. The "anti's" lose the argument based on just one of any number of factors (take your choice): 1) The documented, certified record of the effectiveness of vaccination in preventing disease—an effectiveness involving millions of lives and decades of experience. About a month ago, I posted a tabulation showing dramatic decreases in the incidence of diseases after the implementation of vaccination programs. That evidence cannot be refuted. In several posts I asked the "anti's" by what means the polio epidemic was ended. I cannot recall receiving a single credible response. 2) Almost without exception, the sources the "anti's" use are deeply flawed. Natural News survives by running display ads for wacko products that no responsible publication would touch. Then there is Dr. Blaylock (he still believes the 50-year-old myth that fluoridated water is dangerous to one's health); Dr. Wakefield (Brian Deer did not err when he reported on Wakefield's raison d'etre for undertaking the "study," nor did he err when he listed the exorbitant sums Wakefield received for his services [which were tendered to win a court case for the children's families]); and Dr. Joseph Mercola (a quack from w-a-y back). These and their ilk constitute the "anti's" sources . . . discredited, self-proclaimed experts whom legitimate medical scientists avoid in droves. 3) The end-run attempt by Bee Prepared, in which she stated that all the "anti's" want is freedom of choice. That position puts at risk (as the Disneyland measles outbreak demonstrated) public health, inasmuch as unvaccinated children are prone to contract a disease and pass it on to other unvaccinated children, thus laying the foundation for epidemics. It is, to be charitable, a "community be damned" mindset. 4) The meretricious, crude suggestion that fetuses are being aborted in order to supply tissue for manufacturing vaccine—an utterly ludicrous notion that merits universal condemnation. 5) The fundamental error in inductive reasoning, in which a fraction of a fraction of negative vaccine incidents becomes justification for making all vaccination programs non-mandatory, thus (as I say above) setting the stage for epidemics. 6) The arrogant position that the "anti's" know more about vaccine and its effects on the human body than do the medical scientists who are devoting their lives to that very discipline. 7) The "anti's" pervasive conviction that government agencies, independent researchers and labs, university professors, and (gasp) Big Pharma are all liars and obsessed only with making money.

I think it was Alexander Pope who said, "A mind convinced against its will, is of the same opinion still." Pope's statement has been validated countless times, and it is validated once again on this thread.
Maybe you should first try to follow your own rules since you obviously also resort to "name-calling/put-down name-labeling"!

=)) =)) =))
Kindly note, Army of Truth, I have not been debating Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Blaylock, "Natural News," etc., nor have they been debating me. There have been no exchanges between them and myself. Rather, I have been debating you and those who hold your position, as even a cursory review of this thread will demonstrate. So, friend, my point was that when Debate Opponent "A" begins to lose an argument, it frequently happens that "A" opts to go ad hominem, in which he/she attacks Opponent "B" personally, having given up on winning the debate on the merits. There, does that help?
Sweetwater, Kindly note my bolded words that you are "name-calling/put-down name-labeling". You called Dr. Joseph Mercola "a quack from w-a-y back"? C'mon, really? You just used an ad hominem attack right there. (-|

Is that more clear now?

Sweetwater14
captain of 100
Posts: 112

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

Post by Sweetwater14 »

dconrad000 wrote:
dconrad000 wrote: 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.
dconrad000 wrote: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.
[/quote]

You err. I have admitted to no such thing. Kindly note the following: "Vaccines DO NOT Contain Fetal Tissue. Of the many lies told by anti-vaccination advocates, this is one of the worst because it hits on a real moral issue. However, anyone with a modicum of training in biology will tell you that it is impossible for vaccines (or any other injected medicine) to contain human tissue." (Proslogion, Dr. Jay Wile, "Vaccines DO NOT Contain Fetal Tissue" [http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/ender.asp?vac_abortion])

Dr. Wile explains: ". . . if you are injected with anything containing tissue from another person, your body will immediately recognize it as an invader and begin attacking it. This immune response is often quite radical and can easily lead to death! This is why blood from a donor to a recipient must be carefully matched before the recipient can receive it. THUS THERE IS NO HUMAN TISSUE OF ANY KIND IN VACCINES (caps added). Unfortunately, the anti-vaccination movement will try to convince the uninformed that vaccines contain tissue from aborted babies and that abortions must be continually done to supply this tissue to the 'evil' drug companies. This is, of course, a bald-faced lie."

Sweetwater14
captain of 100
Posts: 112

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

Post by Sweetwater14 »

Army Of Truth wrote:
Sweetwater14 wrote:
Sweetwater14 wrote: It happens virtually without exception. In a debate of this nature, the losing side does one of two things: 1) slumps away, lacking the courage to admit defeat (and never to be heard from again); or 2) resorts to using name-calling/put-down name-labeling ("a paid shill") when referring to an opponent. I have never been guilty of that offense on this thread. (BTW, aren't there rules on this site against that kind of abuse?) That is what's happening here, and it's understandable; i.e., unable to win the argument on points, the anti recourse is to attack the opponent personally. The "anti's" lose the argument based on just one of any number of factors (take your choice): 1) The documented, certified record of the effectiveness of vaccination in preventing disease—an effectiveness involving millions of lives and decades of experience. About a month ago, I posted a tabulation showing dramatic decreases in the incidence of diseases after the implementation of vaccination programs. That evidence cannot be refuted. In several posts I asked the "anti's" by what means the polio epidemic was ended. I cannot recall receiving a single credible response. 2) Almost without exception, the sources the "anti's" use are deeply flawed. Natural News survives by running display ads for wacko products that no responsible publication would touch. Then there is Dr. Blaylock (he still believes the 50-year-old myth that fluoridated water is dangerous to one's health); Dr. Wakefield (Brian Deer did not err when he reported on Wakefield's raison d'etre for undertaking the "study," nor did he err when he listed the exorbitant sums Wakefield received for his services [which were tendered to win a court case for the children's families]); and Dr. Joseph Mercola (a quack from w-a-y back). These and their ilk constitute the "anti's" sources . . . discredited, self-proclaimed experts whom legitimate medical scientists avoid in droves. 3) The end-run attempt by Bee Prepared, in which she stated that all the "anti's" want is freedom of choice. That position puts at risk (as the Disneyland measles outbreak demonstrated) public health, inasmuch as unvaccinated children are prone to contract a disease and pass it on to other unvaccinated children, thus laying the foundation for epidemics. It is, to be charitable, a "community be damned" mindset. 4) The meretricious, crude suggestion that fetuses are being aborted in order to supply tissue for manufacturing vaccine—an utterly ludicrous notion that merits universal condemnation. 5) The fundamental error in inductive reasoning, in which a fraction of a fraction of negative vaccine incidents becomes justification for making all vaccination programs non-mandatory, thus (as I say above) setting the stage for epidemics. 6) The arrogant position that the "anti's" know more about vaccine and its effects on the human body than do the medical scientists who are devoting their lives to that very discipline. 7) The "anti's" pervasive conviction that government agencies, independent researchers and labs, university professors, and (gasp) Big Pharma are all liars and obsessed only with making money.

I think it was Alexander Pope who said, "A mind convinced against its will, is of the same opinion still." Pope's statement has been validated countless times, and it is validated once again on this thread.
Maybe you should first try to follow your own rules since you obviously also resort to "name-calling/put-down name-labeling"!

=)) =)) =))
Kindly note, Army of Truth, I have not been debating Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Blaylock, "Natural News," etc., nor have they been debating me. There have been no exchanges between them and myself. Rather, I have been debating you and those who hold your position, as even a cursory review of this thread will demonstrate. So, friend, my point was that when Debate Opponent "A" begins to lose an argument, it frequently happens that "A" opts to go ad hominem, in which he/she attacks Opponent "B" personally, having given up on winning the debate on the merits. There, does that help?
Sweetwater, Kindly note my bolded words that you are "name-calling/put-down name-labeling". You called Dr. Joseph Mercola "a quack from w-a-y back"? C'mon, really? You just used an ad hominem attack right there. (-|

Is that more clear now?[/quote]
You still don't understand. I was not engaged in a give-and-take with Wakefield, etc. I was, however, attacking their positions which are based on faulty research. By your lights, your use of "Big Pharma" is an ad hominem attack, which it isn't. ad hominem means, from the Latin, "to the man." As I said before, it is a device used in a debate when the losing side resorts to attacking the person rather than the person's argument.

User avatar
Army Of Truth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1828
Location: Rivers of Babylon
Contact:

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

Post by Army Of Truth »

Sweetwater14 wrote:You still don't understand. I was not engaged in a give-and-take with Wakefield, etc. I was, however, attacking their positions which are based on faulty research. By your lights, your use of "Big Pharma" is an ad hominem attack, which it isn't. ad hominem means, from the Latin, "to the man." As I said before, it is a device used in a debate when the losing side resorts to attacking the person rather than the person's argument.
No, you don't understand. Your use of "quack from w-a-y back" is obviously NOT a position, but a PERSON. By the Latin definition meaning "to the man" or "to the person", my use of "Big Pharma" is NOT an ad hominem attack, nor have I ever said it was! You did - incorrectly.

To reconfirm YOUR OWN accepted definition, YOU used an ad hominem attack against Dr. Mercola- "quack from w-a-y back". Is it because you are on the losing side and resorting to "attacking the person rather than the person's argument"? :-?

Sweetwater14
captain of 100
Posts: 112

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

Post by Sweetwater14 »

Army Of Truth wrote:
Sweetwater14 wrote:You still don't understand. I was not engaged in a give-and-take with Wakefield, etc. I was, however, attacking their positions which are based on faulty research. By your lights, your use of "Big Pharma" is an ad hominem attack, which it isn't. ad hominem means, from the Latin, "to the man." As I said before, it is a device used in a debate when the losing side resorts to attacking the person rather than the person's argument.
No, you don't understand. Your use of "quack from w-a-y back" is obviously NOT a position, but a PERSON. By the Latin definition meaning "to the man" or "to the person", my use of "Big Pharma" is NOT an ad hominem attack, nor have I ever said it was! You did - incorrectly.
Two points: 1) I wasn't debating Dr. Mercola; and 2) even if I had been, "quack" functions as an adjective in my construction—not as a noun. Re. Big Pharma, I was using your reasoning, in which you believe that a non-participant in a debate can, in desperation, resort to personal attacks.
To reconfirm YOUR OWN accepted definition, YOU used an ad hominem attack against Dr. Mercola- "quack from w-a-y back". Is it because you are on the losing side and resorting to "attacking the person rather than the person's argument"? :-?
Please see my statement that precedes this one.

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

You may prefer to call it cells, rather than tissue. It still amounts to dead, murdered baby parts, regardless the semantics.
dconrad000 wrote:
dconrad000 wrote: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;

.
Last edited by dconrad000 on April 2nd, 2015, 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote:"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."

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote: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.
dconrad000 wrote: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.

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote: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
captain of 100
Posts: 112

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

Post by Sweetwater14 »

dconrad000 wrote:"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."
The emotionally loaded issue of abortion, replete with abhorrent color photographs of aborted babies, has been introduced as a diversionary tactic, notwithstanding the fact—as I posted earlier—that vaccines do not contain fetal tissue.

If you want to discuss abortion, please find the appropriate thread.

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote: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.


User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

You may prefer to call it cells, rather than tissue. It still amounts to dead, murdered baby parts, regardless the semantics.
dconrad000 wrote:
dconrad000 wrote: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;

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote: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
captain of 100
Posts: 112

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

Post by Sweetwater14 »

dconrad000 wrote:
dconrad000 wrote: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.
Just how "evil" are vaccines? Note: "A child in a developing country has more than a 10-fold greater chance of dying of a vaccine-preventable disease than a child in an industrialized country. . . . Although vaccination saves up to three million children's lives each year, another three million lives are lost worldwide from diseases that are preventable with existing vaccines. More widespread use of vaccines could prevent an additional 1.6 million deaths a year among children under the age of five." (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI, Fact Sheet No.169, March, 2001 [quoted in "The global value of vaccination," Jenifer Ehreth, Department of Health Systems Management, Tulane University, Tolochenaz, Switzerland])

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote:Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are known eugenicists with philosophies of profound population reduction…yet they both have donated tens of billions of dollars towards vaccine campaigns in third world countries…coordinated through the UN, WHO, and UNICEF — that share those same philosophies. Why would those men and those organizations that want to depopulate the world by 80%, be so concerned in the supposed health and well being and longevity of those third world children?

User avatar
dconrad000
Captain of 1000
Posts: 13719
Location: Manti, Utah
Contact:

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

Post by dconrad000 »

dconrad000 wrote: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.
dconrad000 wrote: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.

Post Reply