Yeah, I can't even recall being that condescending before. It really felt empowering, and I am quite grateful to you, and your employer, for the opportunity to cut loose like that.
However, I'm also quite sincere, particularly regarding my offense taken at being compelled to have virus contaminated vaccines injected directly into my little, innocent, baby body, and then to be lied to about it.
My comments about your professional qualifications are also heartfelt. Srsly, you're doing quite well, especially at not rising to the bait of my condescension. Kudos!
"Look, this is what I meant about tautology. You cite the CDC, I point out that really they do agree with me on this."
Yet you fail to note the CDC are lying. C'mon, it's blatant. You'd clearly gain credibility by at least questioning it. I realize it's against the SOP, but, in this case, I reckon my assertion that you are conducting psyops might outweigh that stricture, and give you leave to express intuitive, professional insight in order to create SOME mutual agreement.
You are capable of more refined work than your guidelines seem to permit, I suspect.
"...the CDC is part of a massive conspiracy to
hide the truthmake bank..."
FTFY
"...all these people dedicating their lives to the
prevention of communicable diseasesuperlative profitability of pharmaceutical companies...
That too.
Like all gummint agencies, the CDC is just a vehicle for the parties involved, a venue for the corruption to be undertaken in.
Sure there are some good, honest scientists, at the CDC, like Dr. John Compton, whom I alluded to earlier, who claims to have evidence his co-workers sought to destroy, linking (IIRC) MMR to autism, and seeks to be able to testify before Congress about it, but it's rare that someone rises to that level in such an organization without being fully dedicated to the mutual complicity in incessant profiteering with their ilk.
More likely, pangs of conscience simply overcame his ability to
keep it up any longer. 1/6 of American children is a lot of ghosts to hear moaning in your dreams...
I can't avoid noting your obvious intelligence, glaring ability to parse the science, and you must certainly not be so naive that your position on the sacred halls of government is sincere.
You'll have to dissemble more; hide your intellectual capacity, in order to sell such naivete regarding the $B's of reasons government servants have to serve our children to Big Pharma.
You're quite right about the blockchain, and the permanence of our discourse here.
I honestly am impressed at your ability to keep your temper, given such provocation as I undertook. I really hate the purpose of your employers, but must confess my admiration for their competence in personnel matters.
Do you have a graduate degree?
I have a pretty good spiel against the smoking/lung cancer link. Would you be kind enough to demolish my post regarding that should I make one?
Frankly, I'd be honored.
You and I are both way too bored.
I admit it, the out of left field assertion that I’m a CDC spy with instructions to engage you in debate about vaccines threw me off. I don’t know what to do with that.
CDC ain’t lying to us, though, pretty sure of that. Pretty glad not to have polio too. And, as a cancer survivor, I can tell you I’d take my treatable cancer over life in an iron lung any day.
"I have one that can see!" - 'They Live' I loved that movie!
https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/
If you're not an operator, you're missing your calling, cuz if these aren't professional chops, you're a natural.
Be well, and may your children, and their children, prosper in joy.
Okay?
I think what's really happening here is this:
You didn't bother to read the CDC page that the author if the post cited. And probably neither did she. And since it really wasn't the good evidence for your point that you think it was, your comments have sorta devolved into this nonsensical stuff. Like I was never supposed to be taking you seriously to begin with, so jokes on me!
You can't really have it both ways. I keep saying that. You can't (well, shouldn't) just declare a source of information disreputable, except for the stuff they say that you agree with.
It cannot be the case that the CDC is lying to the world, and shouldn't be trusted, but I SHOULD take the CDC's word for it that a batch of polio vaccine was contaminated with SV40 about 50 years ago. If I take you word for it, then I shouldn't believe their claim that polio vaccine was ever contaminated in the first place.
So yeah, I'm not an operator, whatever on earth that is.
I hope your family also has a long and happy life.
LOL Man, you really have debating chops! As you outright deny you are employed as a professional public relations operator, I'll drop the subject.
There are scammers and criminals of every stripe, and millions of government servants. Sadly, these two categories intersect.
When an organization is doing something nefarious, the organization denies it.
This is not a novel concept. Now, it is demonstrable on it's face the one or the other statement by the CDC that you quoted is untrue. Therefore, the CDC has published, on purpose, an untrue statement, something people in my neck of the woods call a 'lie'. Telling lies is something liars do to keep from getting caught.
Now, sometimes organizations with entrenched interests, particularly governmental organization, such as the CDC, with a monopoly on the particular field in which they operate, are discovered to be doing something bad, such as contaminating vaccines with SV40. If it absolutely proved by determined victims that such a thing has happened, lying does not do any good to conceal the crime any longer, and admitting the act is necessary. When doing so, such liars do attempt to make excuses, minimize the perception of harm, and various other scumbag moves to keep from facing consequences of their criminal acts, and maintain their power, customers, and income.
Again, confessing to a criminal act, and lying about it when you do, is not an unusual thing for such organizations to do, and you clearly know this.
Therefore, you intend your argument to simply obfuscate the issue. You are making a pretense of not knowing of this common aspect of such criminals, and their obfuscation of their crimes.
This is a useful tactic to defeat a debate opponent by simply making them do as I have done here, and fully explore the chain of reasoning and insinuation, wasting their time and effort.
It is what shills, propagandists, and public relations professionals are trained to do, and that you do this so well is why I asked you if you have a graduate degree.
If a criminal admits to one crime that is undeniably proved one cannot suddenly therefore believe all their statements.
Particularly when the very admission of the act contains lies intended to further obfuscate the matter, and minimize the consequences to the criminal of the act.
Furthermore, it is facile, ludicrous, and reprehensible to make a case that such an admission cannot be believed because the confessor is a habitual liar, but you went there.
Thanks for activating my brain! As usual, I enjoyed it.
I don't know who proved, to your satisfaction, that the polio vaccine was contaminated with SV40. My guess is that the very researchers and watchdogs who did so are the same ones who demonstrated that SV40 doesn't have a causal relationship to cancer, and that the polio vaccine is safe.
Here's who didn't contaminate that batch of the polio vaccine: the CDC. You see, the CDC isn't the drug manufacturer. In fact, they are exactly the type of agency that tests vaccines for things like SV40 contamination, adverse reactions, ect... By declaring that batch contaminated, they are not admitting to their own wrongdoing, but rather exposing an oversight on the part of major drug manufacturers at the time.
So we are back to my original point, which is that you, and the author of this post, simultaneously want the CDC to be an unreliable source of information, an enemy of the truth, and also for their statements to be credible evidence of your claims.
So it's really not such a poor choice on my part to point out that you are declaring only the statements that confirm your beliefs to be true here. I'm not a fool, I know that the CDC is made of people, who can get things wrong, but I'm simply not buying that the CDC is obfuscating the deep dark secret that the polio vaccine is unsafe, simply by pointing out SV40 contamination from half a century ago.
Also, I think you could think a little less highly of your apparent monopoly on logic and the nature of humankind? Two really logically people actually can come to a different conclusion here, and I don't think your last treatise on the nature of liars really helps your case.
Especially since, hey man, you kinda lied to me, remember? When you posted that CDC page, and told me to debunk it because it proves your point? Then you turned around and said essentially "Nahhh I didn't really believe that, fooled you!"
As to the claim that I'm forcing you to waste time and effort debating me, I dunno. You could ignore me. No way is anyone else reading this. I seriously doubt I'm pulling you away from a vital truth-telling task. When the history of the anti-vax movement is written, I doubt it will include public-relations professionals (or in this case, just a regular dude) on an infant social media platform arguing with internet strangers.