Ex-Merck employee turned anti-vaccine activist now terrorized by Big Pharma Black Ops branch
32 2015-08-12 by no1113
Here's the article. I didn't read the entire thing. I went through a few points of it only. What I did do, however, is watch the entirety of this...and THIS video speaks volumes as to what's going on.
Brandy needs to get a big ass shotgun if she hasn't already and be ready to use it.
13 comments
3 liverpoolwin 2015-08-12
People who work in that industry are the least likely to vaccinate, they have seen that it's about sales, not science
-3 trinsic-paridiom 2015-08-12
Yeah I really dislike natural news, they have a tendancy to spout a ton of bullshit. Not saying the article isnt true.
2 no1113 2015-08-12
Did you actually look at the video attached to the OP? Are you going to make an attempt to vilify that as well? Are you going to say that natural news filmed that and that what she talked about in the video is false somehow because it was on natural news?
That seems...not very intelligent to me.
1 trinsic-paridiom 2015-08-12
what? come on I just said I was not saying the article is true. I just said I dont trust natural news. relax, im not trying to vilify anything.
1 no1113 2015-08-12
But what point exactly does saying what you said serve when the information itself that Natural News is giving in this case is actually 100% verified and backed up by the very person they're reporting on? It actually negates the point you're making because, in this particular case, NN is actually 100% correct about what they're saying.
1 trinsic-paridiom 2015-08-12
The point I was making is that I dont like sites that make claims without evidence, which they often do, this case is differnt. Im in no way trying to devalue the information, just pointing out that I dont like natural news. thats it.
1 no1113 2015-08-12
But since this case is indeed different, then your saying that you don't like sites that make claims without evidence falls flat, as this isn't one of those sites. That statement - "I don't like sites that make claims without evidence" - is an unqualified universal statement, which means that all it takes is one counterexample to prove it entirely false - and the OP is one definite counterexample. As such, you are simply incorrect in claiming that NN is a "site that makes claims without evidence".
Sometimes it might...but obviously, sometimes it DOESN'T, and the OP is a case in point. As such, one simply doesn't look very intelligent if and when they make a broad, unqualified, universal statement like you have here.
But your pointing out what you're pointing out in this particular case DOES in fact devalue the information because what you're pointing out DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE and is, therefore, a thoroughly unnecessary comment that adds nothing to the conversation other than showing that you didn't think things through very thoroughly.
1 trinsic-paridiom 2015-08-12
I'm not concerned with what you think about my intelligence. You obviously are too attached emotionally to this story, since you are throwing acusations around. I brought up the point because I thought I was important, I'm sorry it isn't to your liking.
1 no1113 2015-08-12
Okay…but you should be concerned what you think about your own intelligence…as it’s proving not to be very good.
What? What accusations am I throwing around? I literally QUOTED you. You SAID what I alleged. It wasn’t like I made it up.
But why did you think it was important? I mean, again I say, it doesn’t MATTER who gives the information if it’s actually CORRECT, right?
Look, I apologize for coming across as too much of an asshole. I can do that sometimes. However, you came here immediately disregarding the information simply because you didn’t like the package it came wrapped in. That is simply not good thinking. It shouldn’t matter WHERE information comes from IF IT’S VALID…and the point here is that big pharma sending folks out to hurt and intimidate individuals who expose the truth about shit vaccines IS A REALITY. Who cares who says it or exposes it?
Here. What about this presentation here? Would it make you feel better if you read it from that website?
1 trinsic-paridiom 2015-08-12
You have a right to voice your opinion. If I spent my energy on thoughts about someone else's label of my intelligence, that would probably drain me of energy and cause me to focus on an aspect of self-importance. Since I am working on removing aspects of self-importance from my life, that would probably backfire for me.
No1113. you are taking what I said way out of context. you are making this about me criticizing the content, from my point of view I am bringing up an issue I have with that particular website. Im sorry if you feel it marginalizes the message. I don't agree with you that it makes me unintelligent because I brought up an important issue about that website however off-topic it is.
I does matter because I wonder about the reason why they are choosing to report on that particular subject as I feel they use legit information to further an agenda they may have however ambiguous it is. 'Why' Is more important than 'What' for me, because it leads me to the truth behind the actions of organizations that I suspect as not being legitimate in the truth movement. Focusing on 'Why' also leads me to the core truth behind dis-info campaigns that are springing up all over the place now that people are search and finding truth.
Some people use lies to tell the truth, and some people use the truth to tell lies.
If it bothers you that much I can delete my post, no problem. Im interested in maintaining peace.
1 no1113 2015-08-12
But your first comment predominated on belittling the website. That pretty heavily implicates the article by association as well. You can’t say “XYZ is shit” and not include what is associated with it.
Don’t be sorry I feel that way. Be sorry that you’re dodging the responsibility you bear in attempting to marginalize the topic.
It’s unintelligent because it IS very off topic to the specific issue at hand. Very.
It’s okay. It is what it is. Perhaps you did derail it…and perhaps this might have been the most dialogue that would have occurred in this OP regardless. I don’t know. I was just putting up some information that I felt was/is very relevant and important where it regards this particular issue is all.
1 trinsic-paridiom 2015-08-12
It is important. I didn't mean to derail that. Sorry. :( Also I edited my last post to make it more clear after this reply you made.
1 no1113 2015-08-12
No worries. All good.
Namaste,
1 no1113 2015-08-12
But your first comment predominated on belittling the website. That pretty heavily implicates the article by association as well. You can’t say “XYZ is shit” and not include what is associated with it.
Don’t be sorry I feel that way. Be sorry that you’re dodging the responsibility you bear in attempting to marginalize the topic.
It’s unintelligent because it IS very off topic to the specific issue at hand. Very.
It’s okay. It is what it is. Perhaps you did derail it…and perhaps this might have been the most dialogue that would have occurred in this OP regardless. I don’t know. I was just putting up some information that I felt was/is very relevant and important where it regards this particular issue is all.