First, I used the word 'practically', which indicates you implied those charges, rather than stated them outright, which isn't hyperbolic, but factual.
"Blaming your slew of allergies and health issues on vaccines is a bit odd. And frankly, telling people not to get vaccinated is irresponsible."
"How would it make you feel if you knew that some elderly immunocompromised person read this, and thought the flu vaccine would give them 100 allergies (it won't), then refused to get it and died from the flu."
"People die from the flu. Do you realize that. Thousands of people die from the flu every year."
You are implying she is incompetent, abusing her professional capacity, and potentially responsible for the deaths of thousands. This is exactly what I said you did.
I certainly agree with you as to the flaws on Steemit, and few have railed against them as have I. @personz may recall this from our initial conversations regarding such matters months ago.
That doesn't make the caution you were availed of less true. Reading @canadian-coconut's comment as a threat is facile, because she clearly and repeatedly stated her intention to not flag you, but that others would, in the circumstances.
She warned you of negative consequences, because she wanted to enable you to avoid them, and clearly stated that. I don't praise her for simply not flagging you, but for taking enough interest and having enough concern for a relatively new user to offer her advice - despite your having flagged her.
You didn't just express your opinion, you used the harshest weapon available to you, flagging, attacking her financially, in a deliberately provocative assault. She but pointed out you were doing so from a profound position of weakness.
That is praiseworthy.
Your continued belligerence towards her and others here, accusatory tone, coupled with absolute refusal to comment on the voluminous evidence provided, are plays from disinfo playbooks.
You are using tactics blatantly drawn from the rules for shills, and I am losing respect for you by the minute.
Should you present any evidence, examine that provided, or in any way pursue substantive debate rather than disinfo tactical shilling, I'll recant.
You won't. You're a shill.
Begone!
I’m a little surprised to hear that I haven’t commented enough on the content here. I’ve written a lot at this point, and I think I’ve specifically addressed a lot of the points made here.
Perhaps what you mean is you want me to go through all 30 or 40 of the author’s favorite anti-vaccine websites and dispute them all?
Part of the problem here is we have a different standard of what constitutes evidence. Her primary evidence is that she developed allergies not long after getting the flu shot. I think I’ve said a lot at this point about why I find fault with that reasoning.
The second bit of evidence she likes to rely on is that no doctor will sign off on the flu vaccine causing her problems, thereby stalling her case in court. To me, that speaks to my point. It’s a tautology.
However, she seems very willing to insist there are soooo many anti-vax doctors out there, who will prove all her claims. Maybe she should get an appointment with one of them? My guess is they will not diagnose her with a vaccine injury, but that’s just a guess.
Also I’m sorry, the self-diagnosis bit puts a stain on almost all of this stuff. It’s really bad medicine to diagnose yourself like this.
As to your insistance that I’m accusing her of genocide...I don’t know what to say to that, other than no I’m not.
It’s irresponsible to tell people to avoid vaccines. I know the hypothetical I posed might make it seem like I’m putting someone’s demise at her feet, so let me add that she is no longer liscenced herself. Anyone who makes vaccine choices based her advice isn’t doing so under the guidance of a healthcare professional. And that’s on them, not her.
That said, I do think the fact that she used to be a nurse gives this really, really bad science more visibility and credit than it deserves.
You haven't cited one fact. You've browbeaten, implied, and ridiculed. You've linked nothing, and ignored every bit of evidence linked.
While Mary's experience is personal, and thus anecdotal, you addressed only that, because anecdotal evidence is easy to dispute.
You've looked at none of it, and discussed nothing but opinions. Having a look at any of it would have shown you were not a shill.
After refusing to look at evidence you then have the gall to claim she's making it up, or that it is insipid.
You're putting words in her mouth. Then you're putting words in my mouth.
You're nothing but a shill.
Okay fine, I'm trying to address your insistence that I "practically" accuse her of genocide. Which you've definitely put out there . I'm not putting those words in your mouth.
She gave me links to about 30 Doctors that she claims advocate for avoiding vaccines. And I've read some of them, and they do. It's hardly putting words in her mouth to say that she's claiming there are anti-vax doctors out there.
What would you like me to do. Start link-blasting you with the vast array of medical literature out there that disputes this post? Direct you to medical textbooks?
I've already articulated my issue with what you and she are considering evidence (mainly that it doesn't pass muster).
I think what you want is for me to treat the "facts" represented here with more respect. But they aren't facts. They are blatant falsehoods, and I will point to the lack of children with polio as my strongest defense of vaccine use, time and again. Or you know, pick another awful disease that most of us are immune to now, thanks to vaccines.
You're right, it is easy to pick apart her anecdotal evidence, but here's the thing: that's really all she has.
And, I'll point out again, that while I'm a big boy, and I can take it, I certainly haven't been calling people names, like nitwit, or shill, or whatever. You can dislike my opinion all you want, but I haven't gone quite that far in the gutter just yet.
Although, there are worse things to shill than the fact that vaccines are safe, good for public health, and don't cause all her food allergies.
Go ahead, debunk these quack claims that Polio vaccine gave people cancer.
This was but one of the links @marymg2014 provided.
"Some evidence suggests that receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine may increase the risk of cancer. However, the majority of studies done in the U.S. and Europe which compare persons who received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine with those who did not have shown NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RECEIPT OF SV40-contaminated POLIO VACCINE AND CANCER."
It's right there on the same page, fourth bullet point down under additional facts.
But just to be extra sensitive to people's concerns, that is no longer a batch of polio vaccine that gets used.
I would also point you to bullet points 3, 4, and 5 under the CANCER heading, where the CDC states there is no evidence that SV40 causes cancer at all, that the majority of scientific evidence doesn't support the claim that it does, and that SV40 hasn't been found in the polio vaccine since 1963.
Since both you and the author of the post find the CDC a reputable source, worth citing(as do I), I think we can all agree then that the polio vaccine doesn't cause cancer.
See? That wasn't so hard. You directly addressed the data, substantively.
I knew you could do it!
You're an educated, well spoken, professional. I bet you're making more now than you did for CTR, and honestly, you're prolly worth it.
That doesn't make me any more vulnerable to disinfo tactics, which you can't seem to abandon for even one comment, in which you did address evidence.
I don't think the CDC has any integrity, and linked to it since I knew you would, and therefore address it, but it is worth citing because they publicly admit they gave a virus contaminated vaccine to 90 million people, which some studies showed bore a causal relationship to cancer.
Subsequently stating that there is NO evidence SV40 causes cancer a) is either a lie, or b) shows that the prior statement that a majority of studies didn't show a causal link to cancer is a lie.
Either way, the CDC is lying - about injecting a virus into 90 million American kids that might cause cancer, as some studies show a causal link - PER THEIR OWN STATEMENT. Some is NOT none.
Regardless of whether SV40 has any relationship at all to cancer, they are lying, about possibly causing virally contaminated vaccines to be injected into ME.
I'm not ok with that.
Since the Vaccine Safety Act of 1986 relieved vaccine manufacturers of liability for vaccines on the official schedule, and the USG now bears the onus of testing while senior staff at the CDC are begging to be subpoenaed so they can testify to the deliberate destruction of evidence (which they can't legally do absent subpoena), as well as liability for defending against claims of vaccine related injuries, and also acts as a distributor for the vaccines, I can't trust them at all - because the conflict of interest is blatant, routine, habitual, and involves $B's.
One last bit of friendly advice: neither should you.
I'm glad to have kept you from debating folks more vulnerable to tactics straight out of the disinfo agent handbook, and, really, it was fun.
Well, that was pretty condescending. Bravo.
Look, this is what I meant about tautology. You cite the CDC, I point out that really they do agree with me on this.
Buuuuut, silly me, I'm forgetting that the CDC is part of a massive conspiracy to hide the truth, and that all these people dedicating their lives to the prevention of communicable disease are actually part of a misinformation campaign to attract vulnerable people to the horrors of the polio vaccine.
You're kind of demonstrating why I don't spend a lot of time engaging with your "evidence" the way you want me to. If every institution that doesn't validate your beliefs is disinformation, then we're starting from a different place when it comes to what constitutes evidence.
Also, ya'll do a pretty poor job of proving that the CDC, universities, physicians, researchers are part of this big cover up. The best evidence you seem to point to is that they aren't agreeing with you.
So, I guess good job? You were taking time away that I could have spent debating someone more gullible than you? Not exactly sure that you've devoted all this discourse as an elaborate distraction. I mean, anyone can still read my commentary.