|
SwingShift posted:
I know that the study showing a link between autism and vaccines was not methodologically sound, and had ulterior motives in it. But I don't blame people for not knowing that, when there was other studies finding other pharmaceutical treatments that were done on scientific grounds. After all, before I took the time to research it today, all I knew about Vioxx was it was a drug that was found dangerous some years ago. Of course, the study that determined that Vioxx had averse cardiovascular effects was done with strict methodology. (It was actually a result of looking at the original study that proved efficacy and examining the side effects closer). So, in both situations, there was a study showing that an approved medical treatment was dangerous. One was a good study, one wasn't. But I can't really blame people for not knowing the difference, because, pharmaceutical companies do release bad, biased research about products that they then market aggressively. If pharmaceutical companies didn't release biased research and market to both the public and to practitioners using misleading data, there wouldn't be a fertile field for people to be talking about "big pharma"
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
joepinetree posted:He didn't have a treatment. The profit on his side would come in lawsuits against vaccine makers, where he would serve as the "Expert" that argued that vaccines caused autism. He had a patent on a single vaccine for measles, which was worthless unless people stopped using MMR for some bizarre reason. You know like a doctor presenting a bullshit study showing a link between autism and MMR and then specifically saying single vaccines were completely safe. http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
DeceasedHorse posted:We have an anti-vaxxer in one my graduate level public policy courses. He brought up the usual stuff regarding toxins and formaldehyde, which is pretty passé I guess but hadn't encountered it in the wild before and I kind of didn't expect it from a man who is also apparently an RN. An anti vaccine nurse was not a combination I expected, but I guess it's like someone was saying earlier that people who are experts in one field overestimate their expertise in others. Don't underestimate the human capacity for cognitive dissonance. There are creationist biologists out there too, and plenty of antiabortion activists who took a day off from picketing to go get an abortion. Plenty of people don't let their education get in the way of strongly-held beliefs they already had before they got that education. glowing-fish posted:I know that the study showing a link between autism and vaccines was not methodologically sound, and had ulterior motives in it. The difference is that vaccines have been extensively tested and studied and researched, and their public health benefit is far higher than the risks. Refusing to trust everything the entire medical industry says because companies occasionally make mistakes or seek profit is even less sensible than believing that the CIA staged 9/11 because they've lied about things and done illegal stuff in the past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
My favorite new talking point on vaccines is that they contain cells from ABORTED FETUSES.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:My favorite new talking point on vaccines is that they contain cells from ABORTED FETUSES. Don't make fun dude, they even showed it in the Matrix (and now we're back to red-pilling again).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:So, in both situations, there was a study showing that an approved medical treatment was dangerous. One was a good study, one wasn't. But I can't really blame people for not knowing the difference, because, pharmaceutical companies do release bad, biased research about products that they then market aggressively. On that note, its possible that Tamiflu is essentially as effective as acetaminophen, so hopefully there are a shitton more controlled studies on the efficacy of medications in general. Drug manufacturing and testing is totally hosed up, as are medical studies in general. When people can straight-facedly publish papers saying "well, our data wasn't anywhere close to statistically significant, but we're gonna publish anyhow because it was clinically significant and treat it like we hit that 95% CI..." I wonder about the field. Yes, clinical significance is important and worth mentioning to other clinicians because of how hard it can be to actually do studies in hospital populations, especially ICU. But goddamn, don't try and make people think it was statistically significant too. So yeah, I can see why it initially caught on too, and I don't blame low-information people for being suckered into it. I just think we need to have better education on what a good study is and isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Lid posted:Formerly there was a group titled the "Australian Vaccination Network". Good name right? Especially for a group that was vehemently anti-vaccination. They would spread propaganda using a name that on the surface appeared to be vaccination education. Eventually the government took a hammer to them and now they are the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network. Not trying to poo poo on Australia specifically, but it is always good to see that idiocy and rampant failures in critical thinking is not a thing solely confined to America. The perspective helps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26954482 It seems to work reasonably well in patients that have really severe influenza; the people that have to go to the ICU and things like that. The problem is it's kind of given out like candy now to anyone with flu like symptoms so we're starting to see resistance develop. Hooray. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-tamiflu-spin/
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Loving this:
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Part of the reason why that number is so low is because of herd immunity. When few people can get a disease, it can't really spread, and so few people die from it. The fact that people don't think that there's any serious danger from easily preventable diseases is because it's remarkably hard to get them because so many people are immune. If anti-vaxxers get their way those statistics will just go up. It's my understanding that before we had vaccines, one in three kids died before age 21. Now not all of the decrease in mortality will be from vaccination, but I'd guess that at least half of it is. Anti-vaccers also have no sense of history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:It's my understanding that before we had vaccines, one in three kids died before age 21. Now not all of the decrease in mortality will be from vaccination, but I'd guess that at least half of it is. Vaccination was also a major component in how smallpox got eradicated. It's part of why polio is also being systematically annihilated. And, you know, that whole "measles and mumps epidemics no longer happen" thing. That's a pretty major win for vaccination, I'd say. I don't know about you guys but if a doctor gave me an option between "your child will be at increased risk of developing autism" and "your child will have a high likelihood of dying of a horrifying disease" I'd take the autism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Vaccination was also a major component in how smallpox got eradicated. It's part of why polio is also being systematically annihilated. And, you know, that whole "measles and mumps epidemics no longer happen" thing. That's a pretty major win for vaccination, I'd say. "If I stand up, I can see the concert better. Therefore, if we stand up, we all can see the concert better" <- essentially the position of people who skip vaccines. Except "seeing the concert" is, in this case, is actually about not having an incredibly high chance of dying of easily preventable childhood diseases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's part of why polio is also being systematically annihilated. The Syrian Civil War is really loving that up for us. On top of the horror of civil war, those poor people are also facing an outbreak of polio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
No surprise in these sorts of conditions: Our isolated lifestyles probably help to limit the effect of unvaccinated people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No surprise in these sorts of conditions: It's not even that, it's the fact that vaccination has already almost completely wiped out these diseases in the US. These schools where 70% or more of students go unvaccinated still have a pretty good chance of never having any of their students get these diseases simply because vaccination has ensured that there isn't a single measles carrier within a hundred miles to catch measles from. At least until one of the kids goes on a family vacation to a country where these diseases are still active, brings it back to the US with them, and infects half their school, all of whom infect every unvaccinated person they meet, and suddenly the CDC has an epidemic on their hands with the potential to reestablish the disease in that area if the vaccination rate is low enough. When an unvaccinated population catches these diseases, it can quickly become disastrous, but the diseases are so rare in the US and herd immunity is prevalent enough that an unvaccinated person can go a decade or more without ever becoming infected, creating a false sense of security. Arguably the most ironic and tragic thing about the anti-vaxxers, and the thing that best demonstrates the complete ignorance of anti-vaxxers, is the fact that they encourage others to not vaccinate. After all, one unvaccinated child is mostly safe since herd immunity protects them from the risks of not being vaccinated; it's only as the vaccination rate drops noticeably in a population as a whole that the danger level skyrockets. Not only have their parents put them at risk by refusing to vaccinate them, but they break down the herd immunity that protects their children by encouraging others to not vaccinate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Arguably the most ironic and tragic thing about the anti-vaxxers, and the thing that best demonstrates the complete ignorance of anti-vaxxers, is the fact that they encourage others to not vaccinate. After all, one unvaccinated child is mostly safe since herd immunity protects them from the risks of not being vaccinated; it's only as the vaccination rate drops noticeably in a population as a whole that the danger level skyrockets. Not only have their parents put them at risk by refusing to vaccinate them, but they break down the herd immunity that protects their children by encouraging others to not vaccinate. At least it proves they're only unbelievably ignorant, and not actively malicious. That's... something, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:We're currently dealing with the results of this in Calgary, where we've had two recent measles cases lately. People have been warned about exposure at one high school and two restaurants, and non-vaccinated students are not being permitted to attend the high school in question for a month. Now, if I were a perfectly selfish person, I wouldn't really care. I was vaccinated, because my parents weren't irretrievably loving stupid and I had no contra-indications. However, this is not the case for people who, for whatever reason, can't be vaccinated. It's one thing to gamble with your own life, but it really pisses me off when you gamble with other people's lives. As an employee at one of the two restaurants in question I can't begin to tell you the frustration I have had with AHS in the past week. I am almost as upset with our government's reaction to the outbreak as I am to employees telling me they don't want to get vaccinated - as adults - because they don't want to "get autism". We had a conversation today about looking to see if we can make mandatory vaccination a part of our employee contract but I'm not holding out much hope for that working. It's hard enough to find workers right now, but I'd rather eat the staff shortage forever than work with people that are afraid of catching autism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Sao posted:As an employee at one of the two restaurants in question I can't begin to tell you the frustration I have had with AHS in the past week. I am almost as upset with our government's reaction to the outbreak as I am to employees telling me they don't want to get vaccinated - as adults - because they don't want to "get autism". We had a conversation today about looking to see if we can make mandatory vaccination a part of our employee contract but I'm not holding out much hope for that working. Like, they think it's literally a disease one can catch? That's... what? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The Syrian Civil War is really loving that up for us. On top of the horror of civil war, those poor people are also facing an outbreak of polio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Lord_Ventnor posted:Like, they think it's literally a disease one can catch? Never underestimate how profoundly stupid or misinformed people can be. Few people fact check much, if anything, so all some people know is "Jenny McCarthy said vaccines cause autism." Why people take medical advice from a celebrity rather than a doctor is beyond me but there you have it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:Not trying to poo poo on Australia specifically, but it is always good to see that idiocy and rampant failures in critical thinking is not a thing solely confined to America. The perspective helps. What could be the common factor? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Dux Supremus posted:Don't forget Boko Haram creating a reservoir for it in northern Nigeria because "Westernization is sinful." I think more blatantly and consistently associating the anti-vax movement with fundamentalist terrorists would be a good if hyperbolic way of shaming people into doing what's best for everyone else when education and persuasion fails, especially when the behavior in question actually does pose a public health and security risk. To be honest, anti-vaxxers have probably done more to actually harm Western society than virtually any fundamentalist terrorist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Never underestimate how profoundly stupid or misinformed people can be. Few people fact check much, if anything, so all some people know is "Jenny McCarthy said vaccines cause autism." Why people take medical advice from a celebrity rather than a doctor is beyond me but there you have it. Unlike the medical industry, celebrities aren't in it for the money, so they will tell you The Truth. Yep that's right, celebrities never ever do things just to get media attention and keep their names in the headlines, and never ever profit from endorsements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unlike the medical industry, celebrities aren't in it for the money, so they will tell you The Truth. Also, and more importantly, celebrities are usually great at telling compelling stories and people often feel a personal connection with them. Though even if they weren't, a random mother telling the camera in a shaky voice about how she saw the light of her son's soul fading from his eyes as the vaccine was administered will beat a dispassionate doctor stating actual proven facts any day of the week. I wouldn't necessarily assume they're all just in it for the fame and profit, though. It's very easy to underestimate how prone people are to abject stupidity even when it flies in the face of widely available evidence. There's plenty of creationists and climate change deniers with PhDs, and probably antivaxxer nurses too, compared to that, it's not terribly shocking that celebrities with no specific expertise in science of any sort are falling into bad ideas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
I used to be Facebook friends with a guy who was big into anti-vaxxerism, 9/11 trutherism, using baking soda to cure cancer, and all sorts of other bizarre poo poo. He once posted a link that he titled "Definitive and undeniable proof that vaccines cause harm!" His link was a blog post describing how a recent study had shown that vaccinated children are more than twice as likely to develop fever or cold-like symptoms than unvaccinated children, ergo unvaccinated children are generally healthier than vaccinated children and you should stop using vaccines. That blog post had a single citation: an anti-vaccine site had posted an internet poll asking people whether their unvaccinated children were more healthy or less healthy than vaccinated children. When I pointed out to him that an internet poll does not constitute "definitive" or "undeniable" proof of anything, he started ranting about autism and how the aluminum in vaccines is way over FDA regulations and causes all sorts of poo poo to go wrong with you, and harm-causing vaccines are sold by Big Pharma in order to make us dumb and stupid so that we'll shell out more money for vaccines and so that the government could control us and keep us docile. It was like watching a tea kettle boil over with idiocy. I eventually de-friended him after we had a week-long "debate" where he claimed that baking soda taken orally cures cancer. My strategy was to repeatedly ask him for non-anecdotal evidence while directly pointing out his logical fallacies, while his strategy was to spam links to testimonials on Youtube while claiming that I had to find the non-anecdotal evidence for myself because I wouldn't be convinced if he found the real evidence for me. At one point he cited a University of Arizona study, saying "see, even universities are looking at using this treatment, it's legit." I showed him an actual copy of that research group's findings: they fed baking soda to rats with tumors and found that the tumors didn't shrink the tumors at all. At this point he accused them of being in bed with Big Pharma and that they were screwing up the treatment somehow. I'm waiting for my Big Pharma payments but they haven't arrived yet 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I don't know about you guys but if a doctor gave me an option between "your child will be at increased risk of developing autism" and "your child will have a high likelihood of dying of a horrifying disease" I'd take the autism. I've seen this idea posted several times in this thread, and I wish you people would stop. This arguments gives some credence, however slight, to the fraudulent idea that vaccines cause autism. I know that you're trying to play devil's advocate so that you can point out how a parent would logically choose vaccines anyway, but a logical argument is not going to work against the kind of person who discounts scientific evidence and who believes in homeopathic remedies, so your argument fails on multiple fronts and is only going to gain traction among people who are already pro-vaccine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
jre posted:He had a patent on a single vaccine for measles, which was worthless unless people stopped using MMR for some bizarre reason. You know like a doctor presenting a bullshit study showing a link between autism and MMR and then specifically saying single vaccines were completely safe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
fade5 posted:So what was this rear end in a top hat's plan if people turned out to be loving morons and linked all vaccines with Autism? (You know, exactly what ended up happening.) I really hope he privately feels at least a little horrified at what he caused. He was already making obscene amounts of money, he was being paid by a lawyer to find any sort of negative effects from the MMR vaccines. The same lawyer would likely pay him to be an expert witness in any class action lawsuits that he brought against MMR vaccine manufacturers. Making money off of his own patented MMR vaccine that totally doesn't cause autism like those other vaccines was just one more layer of making profit off of the misery of others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
fade5 posted:So what was this rear end in a top hat's plan if people turned out to be loving morons and linked all vaccines with Autism? (You know, exactly what ended up happening.) I really hope he privately feels at least a little horrified at what he caused. Reading about the guy I get a weird feeling that his entire motivation was "acquire a gigantic bag full of money." It really reads like a greedy prick that didn't give a poo poo who he hurt so long as his bank account got more digits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:At least it proves they're only unbelievably ignorant, and not actively malicious. That's... something, I suppose. I wouldn't be so quick to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. My personal take on the vaccine thing (as well as anti-GMO, 9/11 "truth," Obama-is-a-Muslim, or literally any other conspiracy theory out there) is that it fulfills a need for personal validation where the would otherwise be no justification for it. Basically, for someone who is getting on in years and has yet to accomplish anything with their life, there is a very powerful psychological benefit to choosing to pretend vaccines cause autism: the "pro-vaccine" people (be they the government, "big pharma", or any other nebulous entity that can be easily classified as "the big Other") serve as an irredeemably evil, antagonistic force that has the whole world under its spell. This gives you two advantages: you get to think of yourself as smarter, more intuitive, or otherwise less gullible than most. After all, YOU were too smart to by into the obvious lie about vaccines being safe- not like all the dumb sheeple that the general population is just full of. The second is that you get to feel like you matter, that you are fighting a just and essential cause, working tirelessly against the machinations of the evil vaccinators, all without having to put yourself at any personal risk or inconvenience. After all, none of the anti-vaxxers have ever been targeted for assassination or kidnapping, unlike actual movements leaders like Martin Luther King. For me, all the proof that this is true is in the reactions of the people who espouse this stuff when you tell them they're wrong: after all, if you thought a vaccine might actually put you or your child in danger, you should be relieved to find out you were mistaken, right? But not only will these people not be relieved, they will respond with rage. They will HATE you for telling them this. The reason is this: they aren't ever actually trying to convince you their point is correct, they are inviting you to play along. After all, that level of self-delusion is nearly impossible to sustain all by yourself, you need a support group. If you have a "nationwide movement" of people, including celebrities, spousing your "cause", it gives an air of legitimacy, and it gives you an identity. "I am Bernie Weisntein, ANTI-VACCINATION MOVEMENT MEMBER." Without that, these people will usually have nothing to distinguish themselves. This way, you get the benefit of having accomplishments to be loaded for, without that pesky step of actually having to accomplish things. You might think, how can I say this of these people? How do I know they don't really believe these things? What is the difference between a fake cause and a real one? Simple: a real cause actually tries to get poo poo done. Nobody who believes the 9/11 conspiracy would just start a blogspot site about it, they'd be stockpiling ammo in the woods. Nobody who believes autism is spread by vaccines would just say "Eh, think I'll pass then." They'd be organizing some kind of revolt. It is more fanciful to believe they think they arrived at their conclusions by reason and logic, to assume this is true is to assume they can't interpret information at the same capacity as you. They know autism isn't spread by vaccines, they just really really want it to be so. So are these people willingly endangering their children's health just to get high on their own self-righteous indignation? Yes, and it's abhorrent. Edit: ToxicSlurpee posted:Reading about the guy I get a weird feeling that his entire motivation was "acquire a gigantic bag full of money." It really reads like a greedy prick that didn't give a poo poo who he hurt so long as his bank account got more digits. I should take a moment to note that, people who start these rumors usually have a simple, sociopathic material stake in spreading the lie, as was the case here. (The "Loose Change" video was a deliberate fiction made up to sell DVDs on the internet, and it made its creators a lot of money.) The above applies to people who decide to accept these premises despite the fact the they don't stand to gain anything material from it. Lemma fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Don't forget that it isn't just older folks who believe in this stuff; there are a lot of people in their twenties and thirties who freak out about vaccines, chemtrails, or who ignore the horrible things Monsanto actually does (alongside almost every other major food company) in favor of ascribing the most bizarre poo poo to them. It's not a generational thing. Also, as far as the sincerity of their beliefs are concerned, some of them do end up bugging out. It is not something that we should do anything close to daring them to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Don't forget that it isn't just older folks who believe in this stuff; there are a lot of people in their twenties and thirties who freak out about vaccines, chemtrails, or who ignore the horrible things Monsanto actually does (alongside almost every other major food company) in favor of ascribing the most bizarre poo poo to them. It's not a generational thing. True, young people can go long enough without accomplishing anything and end up feeling the same sort of anxiety- but that isn't really conveyed by "getting on in years." And Christ- that was a long post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
McDowell posted:What could be the common factor? Nope. Murdoch is for vaccinations. [Don't make me research Fox  Also: glowing-fish posted:I know that the study showing a link between autism and vaccines was not methodologically sound, and had ulterior motives in it. Yes. Basically - you get this in climate change arguments too. Person A puts up theory. Entire scientific community tries to burn it down. If theory stands then theory gains scientific consensus and is accepted; if most of the scientific community can burn it down then it is rejected. What is needed is access to the underlying data and ability to repeat the experiments. The nutcases are those who continue to perpetuate the belief in the theory that has been burnt down - without bring additional evidence to their claims. Re Vioxx - once the drug was in the market people had the ability to do their own testing and verify the results. They found issues. So anti-vax people cannot site eg Vioxx as a reason to continue to cling to the original theory because their original theory has been burnt whereas Vioxx had not at the time it was being used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
The anti-vaccination crowd, well, they did it! Polio is back! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/polio-spread-un_n_5266849.html
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Nope. Murdoch is for vaccinations. I'm referring to his catering to the lowest common denominator, leading to 'idiocy and rampant failures in critical thinking' and the rejection of vaccinations. Even if Rupert himself is not antivax, anti-elitism (they think they know what's good for you, but you know better) has been his calling card.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:The anti-vaccination crowd, well, they did it! Polio is back! Yeah they sure used spies pretending to be doctors giving vaccines to undermine confidence and started civil wars, didn't they?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Yeah they sure used spies pretending to be doctors giving vaccines to undermine confidence and started civil wars, didn't they? They've certainly done enough to undermine confidence in the first world. How about instead of snark, you lay out your point.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:They've certainly done enough to undermine confidence in the first world. quote:Experts are particularly concerned that polio is re-emerging in countries previously free of the disease, such as Syria, Somalia and Iraq, where civil war or unrest now complicates efforts to contain the virus. It is happening during the traditionally low season for the spread of polio, leaving experts worried that cases could spike as the weather becomes warmer and wetter in the coming months across the northern hemisphere. The point is you have no idea what you posted. Polio never went away in a fair amount of the world, mainly in chunks of the world that either just had or are currently still having very violent, messy, civil wars. Civil wars cause breakdown in systems, in most of these areas the systems were already pretty garbage, so yea poo poo like Syria and all now has polio as a 'thing' in a bigger way. Or in Pakistan's case, a bunch of poorly educated people hear a story about a specific military thing and just kinda assume it's a massive thing and start kicking out doctors. You're basically reading a global report that's specifically talking about pretty much ruined nations and going "THANKS JENNY MCARTHY" in some crazy America focused knee jerk.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:They've certainly done enough to undermine confidence in the first world. The article never mentions the celebrity-led US anti-vax movement. Instead it talked about Middle Eastern Civil Wars making it impossible to keep people vaccinated or quarantined. It also mentioned how the CIA used a doctor/spy to locate bin Laden by taking blood samples while under the guise of providing vaccinations and how that is being used as an excuse to murder and expel doctors. I'm on my tablet so it is not easy for me to cite specific things. Edit: polio was never eradicated like small pox, just contained. Now even that may be impossible.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Edit: polio was never eradicated like small pox, just contained. Now even that may be impossible. The real bummer is polio was supposed to have been eradicated by 2010. I believe the UN and WHO both set this as their target goal some time back. Then as 2010 approached they delayed it a few more years, and now it looks like polio may not be eradicated in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:49
|
|
