Trump team fully embraces RFK Jr.'s vaccine skepticism

Post Reply New Topic

x

Last edited by ShwaggyD on 29 Nov 2024, 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

If things stated are true and associated directly with the vaccine industry then they, by logic, must be relevant to the discussion. This thread discusses vaccine skepticism, and these truths are what cause most of the skepticism about vaccines.

I'm not anti vaccine, nor am I pro vaccine. I have done more than enough of my own research to be very skeptical of the vaccine industry though; it is obvious to me that there has and is corruption, greed, and selfish egos driving the whole industry. I have worked in academic research and have seen first hand how easily and often studies and experiments can and are fabricated, manipulated, and even outright faked to support someone's personal agenda. We saw this blatantly and constantly when related with covid; vaccine makers found to have suppressed and fabricated information to support their vaccine push.

They're not though, and posting a long article like that without adequately calling out what exactly you're talking about it isn't functionally any different from other forms of misinformation. It's something that I've observed a lot of folks doing over the years I've been on the internet. Providing a link, that doesn't properly address the thing the poster is saying, knowing full well that most people won't look that closely to verify if it says what the person linking suggests it means.

There are issues in the industry, but it is extremely clear that the issues are far less than people like you casting doubt on vaccines without doing the necessary work to explain why specific vaccines are worthy of extra criticism when we already have diseases that were mostly on their way out resurging because people are not getting there vaccinations due to the bad science and fearmongering.

Ummmm, excuse me. Several people on this site share articles and research exactly as I have; is that all misinformation? If I want to highlight a certain part of something I do that and provide a link to the rest, just like everyone else does. If you actually follow the discussion you will find that I have actually stated in part why I am a SKEPTIC about vaccines and their safety.

I have read hundreds of research articles dealing with the subject aspergers, autism, vaccines, and whatever else interested my mind. I have seen good research, bad research, and even completely made up research being written up and submitted as the truth. Personally I disagree with aspergers being grouped in with autism as I don't view them the same, merely similar. I believe that an aspies neurodivergence is a natural occurrence and part of humanities natural evolution. I believe what science calls severe autism is not a natural occurrence but rather caused by multiple factors working in unison to cause varying neurological issues in the brain.

Do I think vaccines alone cause autism? No, but honest research has repeatedly suggested they are a major factor. When I was born I didn't have to go through the barrage of vaccines the modern child are basically ordered to endure. In todays world these children are being constantly bombarded with toxic elements from multiple sources from conception to death, we all are. GMO foods, pesticides on and absorbed into the foods, toxic elements being seeded into the sky globally for various alleged reasons, fluoridation of many major water sources, and even the air that we breathe are all sources of various toxins that are dangerous to our physical and neurological health.

I say physical health because an important part of our neurological system is based in the stomach region. Very recent research, awaiting peer review, has finally recognized the very reality that autism isn't a brain thing, it is a whole body issue. Vaccines have been shown to not only have toxins perforate the BBB but also have toxins that cause gastrointestinal issues at the same time. Since these toxins aren't actually necessary for the making of the vaccines but are used anyways is a problem for me, I am suspicious of the motives and therefore a skeptic at this time.

^^^
I disagree that Asperger's and autism aren't the same things. I've been diagnosed with Asperger's but my daughter has a less functional form of autism. I have reason to believe both my parents were on the spectrum, which I inherited from them. My daughter is on the spectrum because I am.

I read the other day that RFK Jr. used to be a heroine addict.

If he were someone else, I might be congratulating him on overcoming his drug addiction. But instead I can't help but be amused that the guy thinks vaccines are evil and deadly and yet spent around 15 years shooting himself up with a highly addictive illegal drug.

I would agree, but I also think that there is a point where the two do become functionally different, even if the root disorder is the same. People get really upset about it, but a high functioning person with some social issues and odd interests is just different than someone who is nonverbal or otherwise can't live unassisted, and it can be frustrating when people try to lump them together for support. It runs in my family too, thankfully pretty mildly so far.

They are similar merely in regards to being a form of neurodivergence, but similarity doesn't mean they are one and the same. My grandmother was an aspie and she was born long before the modern vaccine agenda, 1917. Those genes were passed from her to my mother and down to me., just as you passed your genes to your child. This is natural selection and evolution at work according to natural law. According to research the very simplistic explanation for aspergers is reduced synaptic pruning during brain development causes many, many more synaptic connections compared to the NT norm. This is what causes aspies to have an overactive brain, we cannot help but overthink everything. Evolutionary theorists suspect that this shows directly how humanity will evolve, if allowed. Many view humanity as a whole as being children in an evolutionary perspective, children beginning to go through something akin to evolutionary puberty.

What is different when it comes to your child and children in todays world compared to our predecessors is the ever increasing levels of man made toxicity bombarding their whole body from various sources and ways. These toxic invaders are not part of the natural evolutionary chain. An aspie in todays world can very well be affected by these toxins just like a NT and have added neurological problems that supersede natural evolution and cause extra, unnatural problems such as severe autism.

As for why things such as this are allowed, if true, is the true cause for suspicion and skepticism. Many conspiracy theorists believe it is simply because those few truly in power over the world are doing everything they can to maintain that power over humanity forever. The theory is that if humanity is allowed to naturally evolve we will learn that we no longer need these self appointed rulers and their control and power will disappear. It is common knowledge that the global 1% truly believe they are superior to everyone else. The common human is viewed by these people as 'useless eaters' whose only purpose is to serve them or die. While this all possibly sounds too fantastic to be truth there are countless clues everywhere that strongly suggests it is. Several, including Bill Gates, have gone on record more than once talking about a depopulation agenda.

I think autism has always been here, and has always been on a spectrum. We've only come to understand it only very late in history. Otherwise, autistics in the past were misdiagnosed and pigeonholed, as was I as a young child. I had been diagnosed as "hyperactive" because the school psychiatrist had no idea how else to describe me back in the late sixties and early seventies.

Oh we are having the is Aspergers Autism debate. It used to be a common topic here but it has been a while.

IMHO Aspergers is a subcatagory of Autism. The main argument for they are different conditions is that Aspergers looks so different then the more severe manifestations of Autism. A burn received from touching a hot stove looks very different then somebody who was set alight, Stage 0 cancer looks very different from Stage 4 etc. They are still called burns and cancer.

The traits are very similar. The clinician who successfully advocated for the Aspergers diagnosis Lorna Wing understood they were same. She advocated for Aspergers as a separate diagnosis for branding reasons. Autism was heavily conflated with retardation and all the stigmas that went with that at the time. She felt that if you called the “milder” forms of Autism something else parents would not be as reluctant to get their kids assessed and she was right.

The only way to truly prove Autism and Aspergers are the same is to prove common causation. Because Aspergers has not been a a diagnosis for 11 1/2 years that is not going to happen.

Sadly autism has become the umbrella label for neurodivergence when it shouldn't be. Autism is a subcategory of neurodivergence, just as Asperger's, ADHD, schizophrenia, dyslexia, dementia, and Alzheimer's. All are forms of neurodivergence, yet all are different in how they are caused and how they affect the individual. Some neurological issues are because of too much or too little synaptic pruning, others by myelin damage or loss, others by neurotransmitter production issues, and/or a combination of these. Historical data suggests that some neurodivergence is a natural part of genetics while others are most likely caused by external environmental factors that cause increased toxicity levels in the body.

A problem with AS being included with ASD is that you've then got the issue of what to do with ScPD which is suspiciously similar to a later appearing variant of AS, and has very little in common with the other schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Really, they should have done more research and then made the decision on whatever conclusions could be had from the research. Given what a short period of time it was an official diagnosis, it was premature to make any significant change without substantial evidence.

One of the big reasons why they shouldn't have killed the diagnosis is that without a diagnosis, it makes it hard to conduct research if you don't have the diagnosis being handed out. It's a lot easier to track the prevalence if it has it's own diagnostic code than if you have to figure out what portion of a broader diagnosis might include the cases that represent whatever the new term would be.

The big thing though is a lack of a proper replacement for PDD-NOS which probably should have been extended to cover both AS and ScPD if they were going to go down the path of eliminating diagnoses.

I think I’m pretty much in agreement with you on this subject. I’m pleasantly surprised to see someone else on an aspie forum being open-minded about the dangers of vaccines.

I remember about three years ago I still believed the ‘party line’ on vaccines. It all seems rather ridiculous to me now.

It really is amazing that the authorities have convinced so many people that vaccines cannot be questioned, when common sense should tell us that they should be questioned just as much as any other drug (you know, like thalidomide and vioxx).

I think a lot of people just assume that each vaccine is nothing but an attenuated virus in water, because they haven’t researched how vaccines are made or what they contain (including aluminium adjuvants, preservatives, formaldehyde, and occasional biological contaminants).

I also think a lot of people don’t realise that it’s not just concerned parents in the lay community who become vaccine sceptics; there are lots of dissident doctors and scientists out there who become vaccine sceptics too.

And even if it were just parents from the lay community raising the alarm about vaccines, the idea that we should just ignore them should still seem wrong to most thinking people. There are thousands of parents who swear that their normally developing child developed brain damage (indistinguishable from autism) right after a vaccine, and we’re supposed to believe that in every single case it’s just a coincidence, and that it’s merely genetics that is to blame?

And if some people have not become more sceptical of the government-pharma complex after the covid crisis, then I have to wonder where they've been these past few years.

^^^
My friend, and Godfather to my daughter, had told me how a doctor was about to give a very young girl a shot (I forget if it was a vaccination, or some medication) when the child had a seizure. He recounted how, if he had given the girl the injection only minutes earlier, he was certain there would've been nothing he could have said or done to convince the parents that the shot hadn't caused the seizure. I believe the exact same thing applies to vaccinations and autism. That's like observing how everyone who has eaten carrots eventually dies.

Why isn't anyone focusing on the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide?

Fun fact: 100% of people who are exposed to DHMO will eventually die.

Sadly he will likely pull “good” drugs (like vaccines) out of the hands of people who need them to survive. Just being an ex-drug user does not qualify someone to be able to decide on what is needed for other peoples’ health choices.