Why are conspiracy theorists so dumb?

[jtprin]

Because they don't want some jerk off like you selling a supplement and claiming it can prevent cancer. Yes you quoted exactly what they are saying, but you are grossly misinterpreting what it means. Also the FDA doesn't make the fucking law, go back to civics class.



No they didn't, they stated what they legally have to to comply with the law.

Again, no they aren't, they are complying with the law.

Yes.

It's not an assumption. We know it is safe, that is why they put it in vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_And_Education_Act_of_1994

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-108/pdf/STATUTE-108-Pg4325.pdf



From the FDA website:





So there you go, it's not some crazy conspiracy and it's not because the FDA want to be assholes and hate supplements. Unless of course I can't trust any information that comes from the gubment or the fda, which brings me to my next point...

Why is the FDA a credible source for evidence when you think it supports your point, but it's not credible when it supports the real point? You have repeatedly used the FDA as a source of information, as does many of the articles you keep posting. The minute I post anything from the FDA or that used the FDA as it's original source you immediately start chanting about "big pharma" and say they can't be trusted.

I feel like no amount of evidence is going to convince you. No matter how many sources get debunked, no matter how many times a flaw in logic gets pointed out, and no matter how many times you are shown that evidence you think is supporting your point is really just a smaller part of a complete picture that really supports the opposite of your point, you still won't change your mind. You say that you are logical and concerned only with the evidence, but you demonstrate otherwise with every post you make.

I will still address your specific questions about mercury, MSG, and aluminum at a later time. I will need to check it out and compile my sources.

You do realize that the FDA is controlled by the government, right? And that the government makes the law? So you're saying it's illegal to claim that supplements can cure, treat, or prevent disease (even though it's been proven that lots can), because they're looking out for the safety of the public? They are subtly telling the public that there is nothing they can do about their conditions unless they take their drugs. It's illegal because if people knew they could cure or treat their issues by simply buying supplements and other health products that actually work and don't have side effects, they lose millions of dollars. Newsflash, the FDA doesn't approve dietary supplements because they cannot profit off them. The FDA, however, approves their own creations and you blindly believe them. I truly feel sorry for you when you tell me that you trust the FDA. http://www.anh-usa.org/vaccine-mania/

 

[see4]

jtprin strikes again!

[video=youtube;KAWoP1kncRE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAWoP1kncRE[/video]

 

[see4]

You do realize that the FDA is controlled by the government, right? And that the government makes the law? So you're saying it's illegal to claim that supplements can cure, treat, or prevent disease (even though it's been proven that lots can), because they're looking out for the safety of the public? They are subtly telling the public that there is nothing they can do about their conditions unless they take their drugs. It's illegal because if people knew they could cure or treat their issues by simply buying supplements and other health products that actually work and don't have side effects, they lose millions of dollars. Newsflash, the FDA doesn't approve dietary supplements because they cannot profit off them. The FDA, however, approves their own creations and you blindly believe them. I truly feel sorry for you when you tell me that you trust the FDA. http://www.anh-usa.org/vaccine-mania/

Honestly dude, if you have such a problem with it, I'm sure Canada or Mexico would be more than happy to take you.

We here at RIU will pitch in for your airfare. One way ticket of course.

 

[jtprin]

The deeper I delve into your posts the more bullshit I find. genesgreenbook....seriously? On the side panel there are links to other articles on the site including:

9/11 truth
acupuncture
autism
creationism
evolution

At first I thought maybe these would be articles that debunk bullshit, but a quick investigation proved they are not. One of the articles denies macro evolution. Another one still claims that vaccines cause autism. I bullshit you not this is an actual quote from that site:

http://genesgreenbook.com/content/why-you-cant-believe-cdc


I mean really? I'm not going to even bother checking the sources for this site. genesgreenbook.com just got black listed along with naturalnews.com, prisonplanet.com, and infowars.com

Absolute garbage. Do you even check into the horse shit you post here? You do realize that anyone can put anything they want on the internet? Putting the words "proof" and "evidence" on the page does not make them proof or evidence.

The second site also claims vaccines cause autism. You do realize that this is no longer up for debate? The results are in and they all point to vaccines NOT causing autism.

The third link is from the CDC (is that a credible source for you? I guess it depends on if it supports your point or not). Congrats, you have finally found some evidence. This suggests the immunization for whopping cough may not be sufficient and that immunity wanes after 5-10 years. So this particular vaccine worked to start with, but the effects are not as long lasting as they should.

Lmao, all you're doing is looking at the name of the websites and completely dismissing them before reading the articles and/or following their sources. Why do you keep falsely stating that it's a fact that vaccines don't cause autism.. where's your evidence? And mercury IS in fact a neurotoxin, as well as MSG and aluminum, and yet they are put into vaccines. No surprise that neurological disorders have been on the rise. Why has the government had to issue $2 billion to vaccine victims if they aren't damaging? Why do vaccinated children still get diseases? Claiming the "results are in" and then not proving or citing ANYTHING shows how ignorant you are on the entire subject.

 

[guy incognito]

You do realize that the FDA is controlled by the government, right? And that the government makes the law?

This is where I stopped reading.

The united states government is divided into 3 branches. This provides some checks and balances.

The legislative branch (congress) makes the laws.

The executive branch (president, police, and agencies such as the FDA) enforce the laws.

The judicial branch (judges) interpret the law and make sure the constitution is upheld.

Just saying that FDA is government, and that government makes the laws, therefore FDA makes it's own laws is flat out wrong. I'm not saying it is a perfect system or without flaw, but we do need fundamental understanding of it before we can begin to formulate criticism.

 

[jtprin]

How is this source incorrect? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/ Conclusion: These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates. Sorry this is all bunched, this site is blocking me from using the enter bar again. Also, isn't it hilarious how most schools require kids to get vaccinated because they put other children at risk, even though the entire point of a vaccine is to protect against those diseases. The long-term effects of vaccines haven't even been studied.

 

[jtprin]

This is where I stopped reading.

The united states government is divided into 3 branches. This provides some checks and balances.

The legislative branch (congress) makes the laws.

The executive branch (president, police, and agencies such as the FDA) enforce the laws.

The judicial branch (judges) interpret the law and make sure the constitution is upheld.

Just saying that FDA is government, and that government makes the laws, therefore FDA makes it's own laws is flat out wrong. I'm not saying it is a perfect system or without flaw, but we do need fundamental understanding of it before we can begin to formulate criticism.

Ok then, bye.

 

[guy incognito]

Lmao, all you're doing is looking at the name of the websites and completely dismissing them before reading the articles and/or following their sources. Why do you keep falsely stating that it's a fact that vaccines don't cause autism.. where's your evidence? And mercury IS in fact a neurotoxin, as well as MSG and aluminum, and yet they are put into vaccines. No surprise that neurological disorders have been on the rise. Why has the government had to issue $2 billion to vaccine victims if they aren't damaging? Why do vaccinated children still get diseases? Claiming the "results are in" and then not proving or citing ANYTHING shows how ignorant you are on the entire subject.

I did read them and follow their sources. That is how I determined they are garbage. Time and time again I see bullshit on those domains. I don't need to continue debunking them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/antigens.html
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/CDCStudiesonVaccinesandAutism.pdf
http://jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf

I have already addressed the money spent on vaccine lawsuits. No one is claiming vaccines are perfect and there are no health risks associated with them. What I am claiming however is that those risks and the associated costs are grossly misrepresented by you.

If there was a pill that flat out cured cancer with no side effects except it kills 1 out of every million people that take it, is it worth it? Is it worth 1 person in a million dying if that meant 100,000 people would be cured of cancer and spared death? Or would you cherry pick the 1 dead person and present an argument that the pill is dangerous? Even though the net effect is without question more positive? That is EXACTLY what you are doing with your $2B argument. You are completely discounting the lives saved, the lives improved, and the money saved, and focusing soley on the negative aspects.

 

[guy incognito]

Ok then, bye.

Why are you so insistent that I continue reading your verbal diarrhea? I showed you that your argument is fundamentally flawed because you don't even understand how the government works and what agencies do what. How can you possibly make a valid point without that understanding? Furthermore why would I bother to read it when I know it is not based on sound reasoning?

 

[Kite High]

• [h=2]Why are conspiracy theorists so dumb?[/h]
  
  Because of the oxygen in the air
  
  

 

[guy incognito]

How is this source incorrect? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/ Conclusion: These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates. Sorry this is all bunched, this site is blocking me from using the enter bar again. Also, isn't it hilarious how most schools require kids to get vaccinated because they put other children at risk, even though the entire point of a vaccine is to protect against those diseases. The long-term effects of vaccines haven't even been studied.

I didn't even get to those yet. I specifically addressed 3 other previous links. Reading the article, understanding the article, checking out sources, and reading and understanding the sources all take time. You would know that if you ever bothered to actually check this shit out.

 

[TigerClock]

 

[cannabineer]

• Why are conspiracy theorists so dumb?
  
  
  
  Because of the oxygen in the air

And yet that oxygen is a free radical! the source of all subversion. cn

 

[jtprin]

I did read them and follow their sources. That is how I determined they are garbage. Time and time again I see bullshit on those domains. I don't need to continue debunking them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/antigens.html
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/CDCStudiesonVaccinesandAutism.pdf
http://jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf

I have already addressed the money spent on vaccine lawsuits. No one is claiming vaccines are perfect and there are no health risks associated with them. What I am claiming however is that those risks and the associated costs are grossly misrepresented by you.

If there was a pill that flat out cured cancer with no side effects except it kills 1 out of every million people that take it, is it worth it? Is it worth 1 person in a million dying if that meant 100,000 people would be cured of cancer and spared death? Or would you cherry pick the 1 dead person and present an argument that the pill is dangerous? Even though the net effect is without question more positive? That is EXACTLY what you are doing with your $2B argument. You are completely discounting the lives saved, the lives improved, and the money saved, and focusing soley on the negative aspects.

Where is your evidence that vaccines have saved anyone from anything? You claim my sources are inaccurate without explaining and proving why... and then you list Wikipedia as your source? Vaccines did not save us or extend our longevity; access to cleaner water, availability of food, better hygiene, etc. is why we live longer, not because vaccines eradicated deadly diseases. Polio still exists today, it's just labeled under different names, but that doesn't mean the disease itself was ever dealt with. You might ask yourself, well, then why do unvaccinated people in other countries still get polio.. well, they're living conditions are far worse than the typical Americans. Barely any access to nutrition or clean water kind of depletes the immune system.

 

[jtprin]

Why are you so insistent that I continue reading your verbal diarrhea? I showed you that your argument is fundamentally flawed because you don't even understand how the government works and what agencies do what. How can you possibly make a valid point without that understanding? Furthermore why would I bother to read it when I know it is not based on sound reasoning?

Ad hominem argument. Besides, the bolded don't even correlate unless you have a biased agenda. I also never said anything inaccurate, it is a fact that the government does create laws. Just because I didn't specify which part doesn't mean I was wrong. Your arguments are very, very shallow.

 

[guy incognito]

Where is your evidence that vaccines have saved anyone from anything? You claim my sources are inaccurate without explaining and proving why... and then you list Wikipedia as your source? Vaccines did not save us or extend our longevity; access to cleaner water, availability of food, better hygiene, etc. is why we live longer, not because vaccines eradicated deadly diseases. Polio still exists today, it's just labeled under different names, but that doesn't mean the disease itself was ever dealt with. You might ask yourself, well, then why do unvaccinated people in other countries still get polio.. well, they're living conditions are far worse than the typical Americans. Barely any access to nutrition or clean water kind of depletes the immune system.

Dude there are over a hundred sources listed on the wikipedia article. If you dispute any factual information please update the article.

 

[cannabineer]

Where is your evidence that vaccines have saved anyone from anything? You claim my sources are inaccurate without explaining and proving why... and then you list Wikipedia as your source?

Wow. Just wow. We have shown time and again that your bland declarative assertions have been all the way through the pony. Yet you go non as if what you say isn't only still good grazing, but the only good grazing.

Vaccines did not save us or extend our longevity;

Incorrect. Consider a single counterexample: smallpox. Vaccination has eradicated this former feared killer of hundreds of millions of humans per century. Vaccines accomplished this.

access to cleaner water, availability of food, better hygiene, etc. is why we live longer, not because vaccines eradicated deadly diseases. Polio still exists today, it's just labeled under different names, but that doesn't mean the disease itself was ever dealt with. You might ask yourself, well, then why do unvaccinated people in other countries still get polio.. well, they're living conditions are far worse than the typical Americans.

And yet how did we get here? A few hundred years ago, almost all humans lived in execrable conditions, comparable to what the Horn of Africa is like today. And somehow we not only survived but prevailed. So again ... demonstrably pony-processed.

Barely any access to nutrition or clean water kind of depletes the immune system.

Actually it builds it up.

ceterum censeo you have not shown and defended even one instance where, as you claim, I brought an incorrect argument.
Remember how another sitemate, capable of far more incisive use of the gray matter than you have yet to demonstrate, identified you as an evangelist? You are the equivalent of an airport ponytail, chanting obvious pony leavings relentlessly because that's what someone told you to do, and refusing to see how repellent it is.

In a way, i express a sort of perverse admiration. I wish I could do what you are doing, but in real life. it takes a certain something to refute the passage of the well-swept blade, loudly declare I have not been beheaded! and blithely march on. Alas; I yield to simple physics. The Zeroth Commandment is a burden greater than mountains. cn

 

[jtprin]

So you haven't had a flu shot, and you haven't had the flu in 10+ years. Therefore flu shots do absolutely nothing. That is specious reasoning.
Although I have never used my airbag, I also have never died. Does that mean air bags do nothing?

And how does $2 billion for damages prove it is harmful? I don't think you understand the volume of vaccinations we are talking about. There are a lot of people, and a lot of different vaccines. $2 billion is paltry compared to the amount of money vaccines have saved due to healthier populations.

Let me go grab my waders and tin foil hate before you post your rebuttal about disease sky rocketing since the implementation the vaccine.

That's not my reasoning on flu shots, either. There are a bunch of different types of flu strains and flu shots only protect against one or a select few of them. Plus... http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6207a2.htm?s_cid=mm6207a2_w So not only are they not that effective, but they have side effects and the long term damage hasn't even been studied.

 

[jtprin]

Wow. Just wow. We have shown time and again that your bland declarative assertions have been all the way through the pony. Yet you go non as if what you say isn't only still good grazing, but the only good grazing. Incorrect. Consider a single counterexample: smallpox. Vaccination has eradicated this former feared killer of hundreds of millions of humans per century. Vaccines accomplished this. And yet how did we get here? A few hundred years ago, almost all humans lived in execrable conditions, comparable to what the Horn of Africa is like today. And somehow we not only survived but prevailed. So again ... demonstrably pony-processed.
Actually it builds it up.

ceterum censeo you have not shown and defended even one instance where, as you claim, I brought an incorrect argument.
Remember how another sitemate, capable of far more incisive use of the gray matter than you have yet to demonstrate, identified you as an evangelist? You are the equivalent of an airport ponytail, chanting obvious pony leavings relentlessly because that's what someone told you to do, and refusing to see how repellent it is.

In a way, i express a sort of perverse admiration. I wish I could do what you are doing, but in real life. it takes a certain something to refute the passage of the well-swept blade, loudly declare I have not been beheaded! and blithely march on. Alas; I yield to simple physics. The Zeroth Commandment is a burden greater than mountains. cn

Your first response is nothing but an ad hominem that fails to counter anything I posted, as usual, typical of your posts. Secondly, where is your proof that vaccines protect against smallpox? Did you really just say that not being able to drink clean water or have access to nutrition builds up your immune system? If you're dehydrated and don't have any nutrients, please tell me how that builds the immune system. I'd like to see how long you survive without nutrition or clean water. You don't bring any arguments to the table, all you do is claim my sources are wrong without providing any of your own evidence. You're off in your own delusional world where you think things are fact just because you said it.

 

[jtprin]

Dude there are over a hundred sources listed on the wikipedia article. If you dispute any factual information please update the article.

Then go find them and link them. Give me direct sources proving that vaccines have eradicated any disease.