Nope. Quack alert. See the referenced links. The guy is a charlatan. If it was 100 years ago he would literally be selling snake oil, door to door.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-natural-news/

Yes, because it's good business to kill off your customers. :rofl:

Oh, I see the confusion. I wasn't saying look at Mercola...I was referencing Dr. Hilleman in both of the links.

Was the transcript in the link I posted on Natural News a fraud?

rebound, what time frame are we talking for your "kill off"...days, months, years, decades?
I've been witness to business plans that make products with a pre-determined life cycle. These items could be made to last longer, but the idea was that you need to have people dependent on your product...so you can keep selling.

Makes sense, right? No one really wants to make products that will last infinitely...because it would be a one and done sale and you'd have to charge too much money to compensate you for the rest of your life. So, you make things with a known cycle life...which will keep rev's flowing on a predictable basis.

Anyway, why would this be any different in ALL areas of business that produce a product for consumption? You don't want a one and done...not a good business model. For predictable cash flow...you want to create:

A product that people become dependent upon and have to keep coming back for more and frankly, why not create some issues within one area that will lead to solutions from another area where there may be a vested interest?

Which is why I'm so frustrated with the idea of "finding cures"...BS, for them to "find cures"...it's a one and done. Not a good business model. Now, how many of the companies today working on "finding the cure" are publicly traded stock co's?

Seems to me, we have the "hope" of "them" finding a "cure" that will ultimately put them out of business...IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. But, we rally around hope and change, don't we?! How much money is donated every year to fund these "cures" they're working on?

Oh boy, I'm sure I've opened a whole new can of worms now. You see, my distrust goes deep...because I've been in the pit with some vipers...and it's not pretty or nice.

:iagree: I was really tired and should've quit before I posted that lame rating system on him.:bustingup

OK, back to critical thinking...I had a chance to go back to Science-Based Medicine and look over the info.

This is the part where I suspect you and I will never be able to agree. The name of the site says it all...it's Science-Based...and who better to quote to support science: CDC and WHO

I will NEVER trust these organizations. There's a vested interest...CDC and WHO serve it up...the Problem...Govt's react...we have a problem and must do something or else and big pharma steps in....with a solution and the cycle goes on and on and on.

The other thing I will never trust...numbers and the quality of such information. Look at govt stats...multi-layered deceptions to serve their interest.

So, trash in, trash out.

As for the Dr. that wrote that piece...I think he has good intentions. I don't think he's trying to hurt anyone...most of us aren't...we're just so compartmentalized and will find ways to justify what we're doing as being the correct course of action. Maybe it is...maybe it isn't. In most cases on an individual basis, we're trying to be good people. Unfortunately, good people can get sucked into a corrupt system and not fully understand "the business model".

I do think though, that at some point in our lives, we are faced with the truth about what we're doing and if we're playing for the right team or not.

tynashracing,
I have some questions:
-were you, your siblings, your spouse and any of your children vaccinated?
-if so, any ill effects then, or at this later time as a mature adult?
-how many children do you think die each year, in the US/North America, as a result of vaccinations?
-how many children, in vaccinating countries, do you think develop severe disease if they are allowed to skip vaccinations?

OK, here's the thing. Due to advances in medicine, including vaccines (probably the most significant impact on life expectancy of a population), our life expectancies today are longer than they have ever been. So, the evidence supports that we have been on a reasonable track. You are arguing that "they" are trying to kill us with vaccines. Guess it isn't working, if that is the plan.

That could be a problem for you, working in the finance industry. How do you make decisions? Flip a coin?

Here is a simple one. Do you agree we are collectively living longer? Do you trust the mortality rates and records of births and deaths? Forget the causes, just focus on the end number. Do you agree we are living longer?

If so, that is where your theory of "them" killing us falls apart. People have forgotten the horrors of childhood illnesses that have been largely erradicated. And your fear of "them" would cause you to take risks of returning to that age, and subject your children to those risks. That is why there are laws to deal with parents who are uneducated.

motordavid,

All great questions. Yes, vaccinated...all of us. No complications known from taking them.

I honestly do not know the answer to the other questions. I suspect that there are some that pose more risk than reward. But, I don't have any stats to provide other than the links I've provided thus far.

This thread has really honed in on this one subject...vaccination. My thread was a lot more encompassing. I have a much broader view.
It's not my place to suggest to anyone what they should or should not do with regards to vaccines and medicine in general.
However, I have said multiple times...clean vaccinations seem to be the best of both worlds.
Is everyone clear that that's how I feel?

It's a bit unfair, really! I got painted into a corner to prove whether I'm a nut job or not with this vaccination stuff. I said, if they're clean...I'm for them. I think the Dr.'s I've linked have said the same thing?!
I played along and have provided some opinions that I think support what I'm saying? Make vaccines clean for everyone. Don't put them on the market until they're proven safe and effective. Isn't that what we all want?

I'm not a scientist, nor am I in the medical field, nor am I researching cures or treatments for infectious disease. So, I'm not in a position to continue arguing over the particulars of vaccinations. Maybe you guys are in that business? Maybe you have worked with the science that creates them? I don't know. All I know is that there are those people that have helped create them or Dr.'s that have witnessed how they can potentially harm us. And, the ones who create and administer these vaccines vehemently despise any such suggestions that there is anything wrong.
It seems to come down to trust.

I provided you with a link (the I Love Amanda Peet one) that gave you those stats. So you do have them. With independent references, annotations, cross-checked, and so on. You can follow them all and make your own mind up. But you do have the stats.

Last response of the evening for me...heading to a friends 50th b-day party!

Yes, you're right, and wrong with the first statement. They saved us, right. But, we also got better about our handling of food, environment cleanliness...massive improvements were made there, so we shouldn't discount that as having some major benefits for our health also.

No coin flipping. Just have to read deeper. Understand how the system is built to anticipate their next move before they move. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong...but, it's usually just a timing thing. The bigger picture of what's going on is pretty easy to see...for some anyway.

Yes, we're living longer. Although, if I'm not mistaken there's some evidence that this might be reversing?! I'll have to look and talk with some actuarials.

Again, it's not the type of kill associated with say nuclear bombs. It's a slow kill process.

If you were a virus and latched onto a host...would you suck the life out of the host quickly, or would you slowly feed...to preserve YOUR way of life?

The smart ones will do it slowly. This accomplishes two things:

Longevity for the entity that has invaded.

No one is immediately alerted that there is a dire consequence that should be eradicated.


Good night gents.