There is a big difference between "this" vaccine is bad, and "all" vaccines are bad. Q even goes out of his way to make the distinction.
The article in this post is trying to imply that no vaccine of any type has ever worked. It arguably falls under the banner of an antivax conspiracy, with many innuendos and few hard scientific facts. For example, at no point in the article above does the author go out of his way to try and falsify his own hypothesis. That is a huge red flag that what you are reading should be read with a high degree of caution. All genuine science addresses alternative explanations as well as the author's hypothesis and calls attention to the merits of both.
I'm getting downvoted to hell in this thread but I don't even care. You are absolutely right that this is a Q forum. This post is anti-vax post claiming historically vaccinnes weren't effective with absolutely no proof to back it up. And it's stickied on the front page...
The Q team is an intelligent, logical organization. Why can't the board be the same? Both Q and Trump have said not all vaccines are bad so why is this post up?
It takes away from the what Q is trying to achieve.
I just saw a bunch of graphs that clearly show the deadliness of all of the classic diseases dropping rapidly well before widespread vaccinations for said diseases, if that isn't proof enough that there is some validity to the claim that "vaccines take credit for something they did not accomplish", then I don't know what is.
You say "absolutely no proof to back it up", yet I am staring at said proof right now. If you want, why don't you show me why these graphs are incorrect.
Well, if I had to guess, it's probably both. In statistics, this is called "confounding".
So if you can't run some sort of double blind controlled experiment, one easy way is to look at places in the world where vaccines were applied but a change in sanitation either stayed the same or went down.
One major case like this (just from the top of my head) was the campaign to eradicate smallpox from 1958-1978. During that time a lot of sanitation in especially rural areas in the 3rd world declined due to political instability, but vaccination led to eradication.
I think he is very familiar with Q
There is a big difference between "this" vaccine is bad, and "all" vaccines are bad. Q even goes out of his way to make the distinction.
The article in this post is trying to imply that no vaccine of any type has ever worked. It arguably falls under the banner of an antivax conspiracy, with many innuendos and few hard scientific facts. For example, at no point in the article above does the author go out of his way to try and falsify his own hypothesis. That is a huge red flag that what you are reading should be read with a high degree of caution. All genuine science addresses alternative explanations as well as the author's hypothesis and calls attention to the merits of both.
Vaccines are all bad. Not all are as programed to damage quickly as this newest one. https://files.catbox.moe/ek0fhi.jpeg
Using the liberal term “Anti-Vax” tells me your anti-Facts.
“WHO is a front for these depopulation interests.” July 9 2007: “Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher” https://archive.vn/o7u59
Feb 5, 2010: “Why The WHO Faked A Pandemic” https://archive.vn/ck4Yp
I'm getting downvoted to hell in this thread but I don't even care. You are absolutely right that this is a Q forum. This post is anti-vax post claiming historically vaccinnes weren't effective with absolutely no proof to back it up. And it's stickied on the front page...
The Q team is an intelligent, logical organization. Why can't the board be the same? Both Q and Trump have said not all vaccines are bad so why is this post up?
It takes away from the what Q is trying to achieve.
I just saw a bunch of graphs that clearly show the deadliness of all of the classic diseases dropping rapidly well before widespread vaccinations for said diseases, if that isn't proof enough that there is some validity to the claim that "vaccines take credit for something they did not accomplish", then I don't know what is.
You say "absolutely no proof to back it up", yet I am staring at said proof right now. If you want, why don't you show me why these graphs are incorrect.
Well, if I had to guess, it's probably both. In statistics, this is called "confounding".
So if you can't run some sort of double blind controlled experiment, one easy way is to look at places in the world where vaccines were applied but a change in sanitation either stayed the same or went down.
One major case like this (just from the top of my head) was the campaign to eradicate smallpox from 1958-1978. During that time a lot of sanitation in especially rural areas in the 3rd world declined due to political instability, but vaccination led to eradication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#/media/File:Decade-in-which-smallpox-ceased-to-be-endemic-by-country.svg
Thanks for this thread. It's important for us to know about this stuff and I believe it is Trump and Q related.