Why does the left feel the need to attack others all the tim

Post Reply New Topic

To the OP. To provide an answer to your question, that is simply their agenda and strategy -- to attack beliefs, values, cultures, races, religions. They say it's not, that it is in the name of "freedom" and "humanity" but that is a lie. Freedom and acceptance is the new slavery. If you don't like gays, gay marriage, if you're not down with "white priveledge", if you are religious...you are an intolerant, bigoted racist fool. Of course this language is extremely loaded and nobody likes to be called these things. They use this language to manipulate you, literally beat you down into submission, so that you'll shut up and not express your beliefs, and in the process -- be forced to accept theirs.

They're after social/political change, and all of these techniques were thought up a long time ago by some very intelligent individuals, unfortunately for extremely bad purposes. I've stated succinctly where and why this started, before on a thread I created on this forum. These people have been very successful in our academic institutions and media, such to the point that many young people are indoctrinated to the point where they can't think for themselves. The government has done it's job well.

Make no mistake, it is coercion. It is an attack. Start seeing it this way and understand what it is. We as humans instinctively feel when something isn't "right" or we are being pressured. If we didn't, we wouldn't make it very far as a species. Trust your instincts, not what these people say their aims are.

I hope I have answered your question.

This is foolish nonsense.

Me?

I don't oppose vaccines, per se. But, with the kinds of adjuvants and other additives ( http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vacci ... ehyde.html ) that pharmaceutical manufacturers include in most vaccines, I choose to avoid the adjuvants and other additives, and, ergo, the vaccines themselves.

Along the same lines, why do the super rich and powerful get to take "clean" vaccines ( http://www.thelocal.de/20091018/22649 ) which exclude these adjuvants and other additives? If the adjuvants and other additives are "safe and effective" for the general population, why are rich and powerful government officials and others choosing to avoid them? More importantly, why are "clean" vaccines even being made available to them? Clearly, there is something about the adjuvants and other additives that these "world-class leaders" are intentionally avoiding.

Then, there are questions about the vaccines themselves. A disproportionately high rate of children who live in Los Alamos, N.M., don't get vaccinated because their parents have filed religious-exemption statements with their schools. A disproportionately high rate of these parents work for the Los Alamos National Laboratory and ancillary facilities. They are research scientists and others who have advanced degrees. Could their personal survey of research have convinced them that their children are better off without such vaccinations?

Finally, we have the national hype of accepting vaccinations which simultaneously denigrates parents like those in Los Alamos who decline them using the laws of the states that were adopted precisely for that reason. If such laws worked well in the past, why not let them continue to work well? Why the governmental distress about such lawful behaviors now? The unique thing about such exemptions is that the religious and personal-belief exemptions, if repealed as in California, would almost certainly seek a U.S. Supreme Court review ending up with a legal showdown over the rights of religion and privacy as well as the more common controversy of medical assault and battery versus the desire to be free from risk. Well, we can cut to the chase on that battle: religion is an enumerated right and privacy is a derived right within the Constitution for the United States of America while the desire to be free from risk is found nowhere in the constitution no matter how valid the desire might be.

And, yes, measles at Disneyland. But, the official narrative broke down in the days following the outbreak ( http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html ). It appeared that even individuals who had been vaccinated against measles were among the cases stemming from their attendance at the park. This fact alone belies the idea that vaccines are truly "safe and effective." By the way, the most recent U.S. government data show that "[s]ince 1995, an average of 1 measles-related death per year has been reported" ( http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html ) while that bastion of truthiness, Scopes.com, reported that "two people in the U.S. died from the measles in 2009, and another two deaths from measles were recorded in 2010" ( http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mmrdeaths.asp ).

So, what is all the huffing and puffing about? Sure, children should be protected from all the harms and injuries that come their way, but as President Eisenhower is believed to have said, "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."

All of these facts combine in my mind to cause me to avoid vaccines. YMMV. And, unlike many in this national debate, I don't call those who disagree with me "stupid," "idiots," hateful" or other descriptions. They are free to make their own choices about vaccinations for themselves and their children. All I ask is that same courtesy for myself and others who agree with me. Until the Constitution is amended to provide otherwise, I am confident that this liberty will do its job and prevent those who want to further restrict health-care choice and privacy.

#MyBodyMyChoice

^Well yes and no, I get a bit pissed off with far right wingers. I think it is a strawman to say that they are all uncaring self centred a***holes however when looked at from a big picture perspective the right wing (which includes all contemporary major political parties) can be characterised as a system of exploitation and a desire that society conform to a fairly narrow set of rules determining conformity.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is what constitutes LEFT.

As I have already stated in previous posts we have shifted so far to the right that a right wing party such as the Democrats is perceived by many as being socialist. There is no left rather there are any number of groups who masquerade as Left when in fact they are partaking in Identity Politics aimed at reforming capitalism in their particular area of concern. It is these groups who attack the folk trying to present the narrow conformity agenda. What those further to the right do not seem to understand is that there perspective is a direct attack upon many marginalized groups in society.

As I have already said many times before, the attacks we are all seeing on the living standards of the most vulnerable sections of society are not some form of aberration rather it is capitalism in action. There were very real reasons why after WW2 the standards of living for the working classes were improved, since the late 60's the pressures on the ruling elites have lifted and the concessions have been gradually repealed. So much so that the use of the word Reform has reversed. It once meant improvement in living standards for the poor, it now means the opposite. The too and fro between the various pressure groups only serves to obfuscate the cause of the problem.

I used to think the solution laid with Marxism, which is undoubtedly the most democratic and equitable system so far devised. The trouble is I do not think humanity is capable of maintaining such an egalitarian system and I now believe no matter how well it started (ie in the most advanced industrialised society with a highly educated working class) it would eventually be pulled apart.

All this said, it does not give the far Right the authority to demand people conform to their ideal of what a society should be nor does it give them the right to condemn the less fortunate to a life of poverty and misery.

I can see where you're coming from, David. It's a matter of personal choice. You have a certain feeling, borne out of much thought. You come to your conclusions based on much consideration--and you respect the "other side" of things. I

I just have a personal feeling--a visceral feeling, not borne out of much thought--that should there be many babies who don't get vaccinated in the future, that some disaster might befall us.

Fair enough (and I believe you have given it more thought than you claim). Thanks!

I think it is a safe assumption that you can change that.might to will.

Vacinnation has led directly to the virtual absence of disease's which once had a very high mortality rate. Their efficacy and safety is almost beyond measure (that is safety relative to the consequences of non immunisation) To refuse immunisation of a child in your care is a case gross wilfull neglect.

I dislike a lot of the "natural" sites. They always argue that "natural" means it is good, which is appeal to nature. Of course, if we went completely back to "natural," then we would go back to dying in our 20s. Also, they seem to place little value in actual scientific studies and more on much less disciplined, often anecdotal "evidence."

Vaccines have repeatedly been demonstrated to be safe and effective in the scientific literature from across the world.

A lot of people like to scream about big pharma, but completely ignore the money being made off them by sellers of usually worthless "natural" stuff.

I find the less ingredients something has, the better off I am so it's not so much about it being natural, just less. I am quite allergic to most preservatives and many of them come from natural sources, berries for instance, and I don't do well with onions, either, and they are natural, too.

Products that have one or two ingredients that I am not sensitive to are the ones that do not cause me problems. The more a product has, the more likely it will contain an ingredient I am sensitive to.

I agree. When I did marketing and public relations, I considered certain ubiquitous brand names to be forced and fake. Same with "natural" anything. But, these groups don't ask for my advice. Also, I have written elsewhere on Wrong Planet of the genealogical myth surrounding the fact of childhood deaths before the 20th century. The idea of early-childhood deaths in previous centuries skews public perception by implying that every human died at a young age when the reality is more simple: a lot of children (and some young mothers) died quickly and frequently in premature childbirth, problems following birth and, of course, childhood injuries before achieving the age of adulthood (13-16 years of age). Still more died in early adulthood because of farming and industrial accidents. But, those children who survived to 18 years of age usually succeeded in living to about the same age as we do today (70s to 80s, or beyond). Yes, disease, which we now consider preventable or treatable, was one of several factors related to early deaths. But, it was just one factor.


Perhaps many nations claim this, but some have expressed legal and medical doubts. In about 2000, the government of Japan banned the MMR vaccine because of adverse reactions ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ccine.html ). In 2014, an Italian court awarded compensation to a boy for vaccine-induced autism. A childhood vaccine against six childhood diseases caused the boy's permanent autism and brain damage ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-media- ... sm/5430940 ). Since 2012, the governments of Italy and Switzerland have had an on-again, off-again ban of Novartis AG's flu vaccines ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... de-effects ). In 2011, the governments of Australia, Sweden and Finland banned various flu vaccines after numerous adverse reactions ( http://www.healingourchildren.org/some- ... -in-the-us ).

So, while the research literature might favor vaccine safety and effectiveness, it appears that the governments of several world nations beg to differ.

AspieUtah,

I think there are at times public backlash, which can influence governments. For example, because of the criticism of thimerosal, which was actually unfounded, the FDA did bow to pressure and removed it from all vaccines in 2000. (The MMR vaccine, though, never had that, because live viruses were needed.)

The only other case off the top of my head was the case where Japan banned the MMR vaccine. They did replace it with vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella each.

As for the autism connection, I have no clue what the Italian government saw, but I do know that at least in the U.S. vaccine courts have been established. This was in response to a lot of juries just issuing huge awards, even when it was without merit, like blaming vaccines for the development of autism. This resulted in all vaccine manufacturers but one ceasing production, which threatened herd immunity. The vaccine courts are essentially no-fault courts that take on those cases. The standards are somewhat tougher than before, in that the plaintiff must show causation, though if medical records show conditions that may result from vaccines, the assumption is that the vaccine caused it.

Of course, the autism-vaccine connection is entirely fraudulent. Numerous studies have been done which compare vaccinated and un-vaccinated children, and largely none except the fraudulent Wakefield study (which has been retracted by the publisher) show any difference in the rates of autism in these populations.

This is a recent meta-analysis, the strongest kind of scientific study, that examined studies totaling more than a million children, showing no connections between autism and vaccines, MMR, thimerosal, or mercury:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

Both sides demonstrate in-group bias. The left, the right, and everyone else "attack" others if something conflicts with their personal beliefs, values, or the beliefs of the group/labels that they associate themselves with. I have done this and I'm sure OP has too. It seems to be a part of human nature to align oneself with their "tribe", even if it does not always make sense.

IDK I see plenty of sh*t slinging from those who identify as conservative as well as those who identify as liberal(though I think a lot of people that claim that title actually mean democrat which isn't the same thing actually). So not really sure its just a problem with the left.

Yes, “...in the U.S., Thiomersal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal ). But, not all vaccines.


The practice of avoiding combination vaccinations, and spacing them apart over months, is what Andrew Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath, and others have been advocating. So, doing what Japan has done is a good thing, and is something the rest of the world should adopt, in my opinion.


Indeed, they are more difficult. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters (vaccine court) is an administrative-law court ( http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... cines.html ), not a civil (or constitutional) court. The most egregious danger within such courts is trying personal-injury controversies where such courts act without juries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court ). The Constitution for the United States of America provides jury trials within its civil and criminal courts for a reason, but administrative-law courts are simply an administrative-law judge (ALJ) and a few clerks deciding the plaintiff’s fate. As if these concerns aren’t enough, vaccine manufacturers who comply with U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for product ingredients and labeling are protected by the law from additional damage claims ( http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Pa ... z2NqTpTSbY ).


Not quite. Many studies have researched the question of vaccine safety and effectiveness ( http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/22- ... cines.html ). Moreover, the U.K. High Court complete exonerated Wakefield’s co-author, Professor John Walker-Smith, and quashed the U.K. General Medical Council “fitness to practise” panel finding of professional misconduct of John Walker-Smith. The court determined that the panel hearings failed to address whether Walker-Smith had been doing research or simply investigating symptoms, and stated that the finding was based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion[.]” The judge called for changes in the way panel hearings are conducted in the future saying, “It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again.”


The proof is in the putting when the vaccine court has admitted just days ago to having paid out more than $3 billion is settlements to U.S. families of vaccine-injured children ( http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation ... report.pdf ). Scarier still is that the court has denied 59 percent of the claims before it while accepting 41 percent as valid.

To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, this is evidence that “there is [some] there, there.”

Right. Those where they have a live virus cannot have thimerosal and they never did.



If you do the research, you will find that quite a bit of data do support the current schedule.



Right. It did not, however, protect them from liability back in the 80s before the vaccine court was created.



What is the point of pointing this out?



It's not really that surprising, considering that there are some small risks with vaccines (where the court would pay up to $250,000 per claim), such as allergies (though every drug has that issue), and the fact the vaccine court was established nearly 30 years ago. It is the court where vaccine injury claims are funneled through.

AspieUtah,

Also another thing that you should keep in mind is that a study with a relatively small number of people can have contradictory results, due to the randomness being increased. This is why it is so important that, if you are only going to look at a few studies, you focus on the meta-analyses and systematic reviews, because they aggregate the results from numerous studies, helping to remove that randomness.