Cyclone Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Modern medicine is the leading cause of death in the US - evidence please??? I won't hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 You are yet again looking for data to fit the conculsion you want. You are yet again taking one statement and using it to support the conclusion you want, without applying any critical thinking. :huh:No, I'm simply agreeing with what the person said. What conclusion do you think I'm wanting? Which 'one statement' do you think I'm using to support said conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 You want the conclusion that modern medicine is harmful, including vaccines and you selectively dismiss or accept "evidence" to fit that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC33 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) John Gross head engineer of NIST selectively ignores the presence of molten steel at the WTC - to fit his own conclusion - that being the official story is not a lie. Research or testimony to the contrary - that vaccines are safe and work is conveniently ignored by the mob on this forum. We all dismiss or accept evidence to fit our own conclusion to some degree. Cyclone included. Edited March 3, 2016 by MAC33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Some of us try not too though. We do have a definition of what is evidence though, and it doesn't include youtube video, anecdote or unsupported statements on sheffield forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 John Gross head engineer of NIST selectively ignores the presence of molten steel at the WTC - to fit his own conclusion - that being the official story is not a lie. Research or testimony to the contrary - that vaccines are safe and work is conveniently ignored by the mob on this forum. We all dismiss or accept evidence to fit our own conclusion to some degree. Cyclone included. What's next... chemtrails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 We all dismiss or accept evidence to fit our own conclusion to some degree. Cyclone included. Now this I'd agree with, that all of us to some extent will seek confirmation bias. I've admitted that on here in a reply to Dave when I asked him what would convince him that vaccines were a good idea as I would need some incredibly strong evidence to convince me that they weren't. It does go both ways, but the reason people (myself included) get so frustrated is that I think all of us want to learn and we would genuinely accept and analyse as unbiased as we could bearing in mind previous comments about confirmation bias any real evidence around what you are saying. This evidence has to be a wide scale, repeatable study at the very least. I equally understand what point you are making, in that ones that do show issues don't exist because the pharma companies suppress them, but you therefore need to show evidence that the pharma companies are suppressing a report showing that people are worse off taking a vaccine than not. If you can do that then you'll have my attention far more, and probably others on this thread too. We are not completely blinkered, we just need more than a few youtube links to convince us that hundreds of years of medical research is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Now this I'd agree with, that all of us to some extent will seek confirmation bias. I've admitted that on here in a reply to Dave when I asked him what would convince him that vaccines were a good idea as I would need some incredibly strong evidence to convince me that they weren't. Thing is, whenever I do delve into vaccination stuff, totally separate from the issue of whether vaccines are good/bad, is that it seems, whenever vaccines turn up, enforcement generally isn't far behind. I'm just against forcing people to be injected with stuff that, if they weren't being forced to take it, they (some of them) would not have it. I'm against forcing people to have vaccinations, even if it was proved, to my satisfaction, that vaccines are efficacious. Hopefully that clarifies things. ---------- Post added 03-03-2016 at 19:17 ---------- I equally understand what point you are making, in that ones that do show issues don't exist because the pharma companies suppress them, but you therefore need to show evidence that the pharma companies are suppressing a report showing that people are worse off taking a vaccine than not. No. You're agreeing that the pharma companies suppress unfavourable study results. That's the issue. The fact that pharma companies suppress unfavourable results. I've no idea whether or not the pharmas are suppressing a report showing that people are worse off taking a vaccine than not, but I know the truth of the first statement (that they suppress unfavourable data) is not contingent upon the existence of that, or any other report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 There is no compulsory vaccination in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 There is no compulsory vaccination in the UK. I guess I'm just a global kind of guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now