https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdCU2DfMBpU

The evil that is this mandatory vaccination policy WILL BE EXPOSED!!!!

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

I will probably watch his....but certainly not for the reasons the filmmaker's intend.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

it would be a shame if there is a link

because his pseudo science claims would have set the cause back 15 years

also, as in the UK and Orange County

when people stop vaccinating

= outbreaks and death

if this documentary exposes sound science

cool, let me know

but I would expect the research has been done

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

superior in your smugness.

It's okay. Conventional thought rarely dies a conventional death.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

you don't start a study with models that already express the desired result

I didn't even shoot down the idea that there is a connection

I'm shooting down his BS study, that by the way, ended up causing deaths

I'm going to assume if there was some aha moment in this doc, he wouldn't have been included

carry on

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

lab, to simply "prove" what they wanted to prove, from the beginning.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

and no, what you're describing is observation

observation is where one might start, and form a thesis

but observation is not scientific proof of the cause of the observation

if autism is caused by vaccines, why is it more prevalent in males?

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

>and no, what you're describing is observation
>
>observation is where one might start, and form a thesis
>
>but observation is not scientific proof of the cause of the
>observation
>
>if autism is caused by vaccines, why is it more prevalent in
>males?

There are some herbs that are advisable for women to take and not advisable for men and vice versa. Some toxins effect males differently than they affect females. That's just how nature is sometimes.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

if it was caused by the vaccine, why would there be a gender disparity?

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

tend to have much, much, much lower rates of autism and they overwhelmingly, do not vaccinate.

Why is that? Are we still supposed to believe that there is ABSOLUTELY no connection between vaccines and autism?

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

and how there's a significant part of the population who, in the absence of religion, have undertaken a new faith-based system of beliefs that are often presented in the guise of science.

There's crossover between anti-vaxxers.....pseudo-physics like 'quantum mystics'.....organic food advocates.....all that type of stuff. There's a rise of a sort of hippy-dippy spiritualism that connects all these issues. In the west...I fear this phenomenon is more threatening to progress than organized religion.

>There's crossover between anti-vaxxers.....pseudo-physics like
>'quantum mystics'.....organic food advocates.....all that type
>of stuff. There's a rise of a sort of hippy-dippy
>spiritualism that connects all these issues. In the west...I
>fear this phenomenon is more threatening to progress than
>organized religion.

I can't accuse Bernie of being antivax, thankfully, though he does support organic farming and actually cosponsored a bill for GMO labeling. But his movement is suffused with precisely the kind of "hippy-dippy spiritualism" that you're describing.

I noticed that Bernie supported organic foods. I think there were a couple other issues like this that I disagreed with him on.....but he certainly did not make them a huge part of his platform and I think his policies on wealth redistribution address the most important issue in American politics. Judging from the time he allots to those fringe issues....I think it's clear that he agrees.

And yes...I'm aware that there is a stereotypical Bernie Bro archetype that is also vulnerable to this pseudo-science stuff. One doesnt' HAVE to hold those views to support Sanders cause again, the wealth redistribution (in all forms....education, healthcare, social safety-net) outweighs everything else by a large margin.

the Bernie people i know who were all about Ron Paul 4 years ago tend to be more open to anti-vaxxer stuff. they're pretty much my friends who will instinctively latch on to any kind of anti-establishment or contrary to the 'official story' narrative.

the girl i know who goes hardest on vaccines, was for Bernie but now she says she'll vote Trump because he made some kind of anti-vax comment during one of the debates. So she says he's the only one who has any understanding of the issue lol. She also can't ever say Jerry Brown's name without adding (AKA HITLER). She's a psycho

Jesus.

-------
http://adevotedappraisal.tumblr.com - Essays, reviews, short stories and free writes on music, film and life around us.

I mean, it's lovely to see everyone in here acting as guardians of reason, facts, and science. Seriously, it is. In the past, we've generally had a lot more people taking Rook's side on these kinds of issues.

But at the same time, of all these people in here fighting the good fight, the majority have been vehemently supporting a presidential candidate who once publicly wrote that people get cancer because they're not sexually liberated enough.

>But at the same time, of all these people in here fighting the
>good fight, the majority have been vehemently supporting a
>presidential candidate who once publicly wrote that people get
>cancer because they're not sexually liberated enough.


i think most of us who have supported bernie, its because the social issues he brings up are important to us
now, you might gripe with the fact that he's not advanced on the science (or you'd say is misinformed), and thats fine
but until we have that presidential debate that addresses major science qns (http://www.sciencedebate.org/)
im okay with knowing he wouldn't do something as foolish as seek to deregulate the epa and fda (and limit funding for science in general)

but dont act like an appreciation for science and bernie sanders platform are mutually exclusive.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

But one of the infuriating things about the Sanders movement is that people treat him as being more honest, more genuine, and more "pure" than other politicians, when in fact his career has been built on careful manipulation of interest groups (you might even say, "special interests") just like any other politician. And the will of those interest groups, as reflected in his stated policy positions for this very campaign, are not all in the best interests for the country or the world, as it appears most of the people in this thread would agree.

Though it's obviously a bit of a postjack, I'm taking this opportunity to remind people that nobody gets a perfect candidate. We've seen people in OKP pretend it's a disqualifying sin that Hillary Clinton only proposes to raise the federal minimum wage by 66%, instead of by 107%; or that her plan for regulating the financial industry, though overall more comprehensive and more relevant to the actual crises of today, doesn't come along with unfulfillable promises of putting bankers in jail and splitting up banks whether or not they pose risks to the economy.

There really are imperfections in Hillary Clinton's platform. But there are imperfections in Bernie's platform as well, and I wish people were more willing to admit them. It's not fundamentally that Bernie tried, decades ago, to sell his "hippy dippy" friends a story about cancer being cured by sexual liberation. I don't expect him to block cancer research on those grounds any more than I expect Hillary Clinton to go out rounding up "superpredators." But if we can be disturbed by what part of her intellectual makeup motivated Clinton to raise the latter line of thinking, we can also be disturbed by what part of Bernie's makeup motivated him to raise the former.

Nowadays most people think science is something fun to talk or argue about. But I don't think people admit, really, how vitally important it is for the running of our government and the structure of our society. It's not there to be appreciated, it's there to be used. Even in this very thread, the consensus seems to be: all this stuff is settled, CaptainRook is a funny rube, but he's just an isolated nut and we can all feel satisfied in our superiority. But there are people all over the country who hold to beliefs just as irrational as his with regard to scientific issues, and in the Democratic race, they support Bernie Sanders almost universally, because as a politician he intentionally chose to fill that niche.

If Bernie Sanders became president, I would worry about the future of nuclear power (and by extension, the climate and energy crises), about regulation of agricultural practices, of biotechnology, of aspects of medical research. I'd worry about the mainstreaming of the anti-fracking movement, which could have been built upon reasonable concerns but quickly began to flirt heavily with pseudoscience. In general, I would worry about the left being relegated to just another movement, with just another set of axes to grind with no more justification than its own internal groupthink. When the right gave up any pretense of rationally justifying their positions, they went down the path of the tea party and (hopefully) electoral oblivion. The left should exploit that opening to build the new electoral center. We shouldn't try to emulate it.

If we can be concerned that some fraction of Hillary Clinton's campaign contributions came from people who've worked on Wall Street, then we should also be concerned that some fraction of Bernie Sanders's campaign contributions came from people who think vaccines cause diseases.

>But one of the infuriating things about the Sanders movement
>is that people treat him as being more honest, more genuine,
>and more "pure" than other politicians,

i think you are speaking about a specific group of people that you have engaged with,
in the numerous 'posts that say the same thing, different day',
some of us ignore those posts
because to be honest, they are tinged with the very lack of nuance that makes (american) politics infuriating
(everything is too black and white)
but listen, i think i put up one of the first 'why not bernie' posts on here, way before it became a thing
i also know that since, there are things about him that disappoint me
(including he should *now* be doing more to ensure we all vote clinton, instead of maintaining this division.
and working a bit more to increase # of dems in house and senate- or whatever's up for election) if we are really serious about change).
so.. not everyone has elevated bernie to a lofty pedestal. maybe just those you choose to interact with,
and those of us who haven't also hold views that are rational and would prefer not to included in some mythical 'bernie supporters'
or 'majority of bernie supporters'
its not even a majority, btw.
antivaxxers make up quite a small proportion of the liberal pop (even though they are typically well educated, so even if all liberals supported bernie, this mythical 'bernie supporters' would be minority 'mystical'.


>Though it's obviously a bit of a postjack,

an unnecessary one, at that. i dont know whom it is in here that you are addressing.
maybe you can point them out, so they can read all this. i for one havent talked at all about clinton in nary a post. (i'm about to)

>There really are imperfections in Hillary Clinton's platform.

you dont seem to understand that even if hillary run a 'perfect' platform there would still be people who dont like her
I know i dont like her at all (i remember how sleazy and slimy she was during the last election.)
i dont think she's to be trusted.
i think she is more likely to design a platform based on what she thinks is popular etc.
but whatevr. she's the democratic candidate, and the far better option compared to the other side.

i'd much rather spend time talking about how the american political system does not have a proper conservative or liberal party
at least not in the way these are described. you have a fringe (right) party, and an increasingly right-shifting democratic party.

>If Bernie Sanders became president, I would worry about the
>future of nuclear power (and by extension, the climate and
>energy crises), about regulation of agricultural practices, of
>biotechnology, of aspects of medical research.

again, i appreciate science as much as the next person.
but some of these *do* need regulation (agriculture e.g.- remove the farm subsidies).
I dont think there has been a specific debate on science to even start to know if clinton is any different on these issues.
we just dont know, either.

it just sounds like youn are doing the very same thing you are accusing bernie's supporters of doing...
only that you happen to sit on the clinton side of the fence.

there have been godknows how many posts that have gone back and forth about this very issue
i dont know why you want them to spill over to posts that dont have anything to do with bern-hill

and btw, im not dismissing c.rook.
i am engaging with him because this shit is very very important to me and even being able to change one or two persons minds (or give them pause for thought is worthwhile to me)

so im not here to point and laugh, as you suggest, or feel superior.
im here because this shit is too important to just let slide

holding olympics to see who's the more dishonest between bern or hill
is not.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>>But one of the infuriating things about the Sanders
>movement
>>is that people treat him as being more honest, more genuine,
>>and more "pure" than other politicians,
>
>i think you are speaking about a specific group of people that
>you have engaged with,
>in the numerous 'posts that say the same thing, different
>day',
>some of us ignore those posts
>because to be honest, they are tinged with the very lack of
>nuance that makes (american) politics infuriating
>(everything is too black and white)
>but listen, i think i put up one of the first 'why not bernie'
>posts on here, way before it became a thing
>i also know that since, there are things about him that
>disappoint me
>(including he should *now* be doing more to ensure we all vote
>clinton, instead of maintaining this division.
>and working a bit more to increase # of dems in house and
>senate- or whatever's up for election) if we are really
>serious about change).
>so.. not everyone has elevated bernie to a lofty pedestal.
>maybe just those you choose to interact with,
>and those of us who haven't also hold views that are rational
>and would prefer not to included in some mythical 'bernie
>supporters'

Did I ever include you among the "mythical Bernie supporters"? To be honest I didn't even know you liked him until your first patronizing "you can do better" post.


>>Though it's obviously a bit of a postjack,
>
>an unnecessary one, at that. i dont know whom it is in here
>that you are addressing.
>maybe you can point them out, so they can read all this.

Well, given that I started out by replying to denny, he would be the obvious guess.



>i'd much rather spend time talking about how the american
>political system does not have a proper conservative or
>liberal party
>at least not in the way these are described. you have a fringe
>(right) party, and an increasingly right-shifting democratic
>party.

Increasingly right-shifting, though? We shouldn't divert the thread over this (arguing with CaptainRook is far more important), but the Democratic party has shifted dramatically to the left since the '90s, including Hillary Clinton. In part this is because the country has moved to the left thanks to the collapse of the Bush administration, anger at the Republican Congress, the rise in acceptance of gay rights, concern over global warming, and other issues. The Democratic party, which is in the business of pleasing a maximal coalition of progressive voters, "designs a platform based on what they think is popular", as they should.


>>If Bernie Sanders became president, I would worry about the
>>future of nuclear power (and by extension, the climate and
>>energy crises), about regulation of agricultural practices,
>of
>>biotechnology, of aspects of medical research.
>
>again, i appreciate science as much as the next person.
>but some of these *do* need regulation (agriculture e.g.-
>remove the farm subsidies).

Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that agriculture should not be regulated. Of course it should. In general I would say that all industries should be heavily regulated. My only point is that this regulation should be based on facts and not pseudo-environmentalist fever dreams.


>there have been godknows how many posts that have gone back
>and forth about this very issue
>i dont know why you want them to spill over to posts that dont
>have anything to do with bern-hill

When I bring up science in the politics threads, nobody notices. When I bring up politics in the science threads, apparently it touches a nerve. There's your answer.


>and btw, im not dismissing c.rook.
>i am engaging with him because this shit is very very
>important to me and even being able to change one or two
>persons minds (or give them pause for thought is worthwhile to
>me)

Very good. You're not gonna change his mind, or probably anybody else's. But nobody understands the motivation to fight the good fight more than I do. Matter of fact, *this is precisely why I so relentlessly attack Bernie*. I'm hoping (against all reason) to change a few people's minds just like you are.

>so im not here to point and laugh, as you suggest, or feel
>superior.

But deep down, as much as we wouldn't like to admit it even to ourselves, I think that's a fundamental part of the motivation for all of us. I'm really not trying to accuse you in particular. I really do respect you; always have.

>im here because this shit is too important to just let slide
>
>holding olympics to see who's the more dishonest between bern
>or hill
>is not.

See, this is where we have to disagree. While the antivax movement is definitely too important to just let slide, and more broadly, so is the "progressive mysticism" movement (to make up a phrase) that denny first noted in here, it really doesn't do any good for the issue to argue with a single idiot on the internet whose entire goal from the very beginning was to bring attention to his cause. Putting aside the fact that arguments on OKP make a negligible difference on any issue, if anything, by arguing with him and bringing his ridiculous agenda thread up to well over 100 replies all we're really doing is bringing him the attention he craved from the very beginning. If the thread had sunk directly off of the front page then fewer people would have been misled by his bullshit. I think we argue in these threads because it makes us feel better, first and foremost, whether it does any good or not.

And yeah, that's why we argue about politics in the politics threads. But at least the politics threads are timely. At least changing a few minds on political issues, if it were ever to happen, could actually matter for something and wouldn't just be swallowed up in the permanent and inevitable tide of irrationality.

with this patronising, father-knows-best bullshit you spew?

That you see a discussion about anti-vaccine supporters and the first thing in your mind is to insert your shit talking points about Sanders speaks to the extent you are trapped hopelessly in an echo chamber.

It's like someone showing up in a Prince percocet post screaming "Hillary is paid off by Big Pharma ZOMG!"

I mean most people who troll and rabble rouse here do it out of boredom or shits and giggles, and that malevolent glee comes across in the tone of their posts most times. You on the other hand, seem to think you are, dare I say it, saving us wretched souls, perhaps illuminating us with the truth as we commute to Damascus until we change our names and our misguided ways.

Instead you come off as a desperate, shrill bully.

It's slowly become pathetic. Please stop.

-------
http://adevotedappraisal.tumblr.com - Essays, reviews, short stories and free writes on music, film and life around us.

>
>It's like someone showing up in a Prince percocet post
>screaming "Hillary is paid off by Big Pharma ZOMG!"
>
>
>Instead you come off as a desperate, shrill bully.
>
>It's *rapidly* become pathetic. Please stop.

i still blame hip-hop.

So it's patronizing for me to point out that people are being selective in their outrage? Fine.

I've been a regular in these antivax posts for over a decade. I promise, I'm not getting in the way of anyone who wants to call out CaptainRook on his ludicrous bullshit. Good for them. It's fun to take on such easy targets.

But denny made a point specifically about irrational mystical beliefs that are widespread on the political left. He left out the most timely example, and I pointed it out.

Look, I'm known for only two things around OKP. The first is that I'll argue for weeks on end with antivaxers, global warming deniers, evolution deniers, deniers of other aspects of science (and yes, I happily bully those people, just like everyone's bullying CaptainRook in here). The other is that I'm the ONLY person here who actively opposes Bernie Sanders as a candidate. I'm taking this rare opportunity to point out, to those who haven't realized it, that these two aspects of my OKP identity are fundamentally linked.

denny, Mynoriti, and akon have all agreed that they see the connection, but that other issues are more important to them. That's fine. Other issues are not more important to me, though. Discussion boards are for having discussions.

The fact that you don't want the connection to even be made seems to indicate that you feel threatened by it, which is telling.

AGAIN!!!!

Most attack me here, because they really don't know any better. Columbus was attacked throughout Europe for his claim that the world was round. This thought/concept/belief offended them by making them feel uncomfortable, so they did what was the most natural thing to do; they attacked him.

I don't see the attacks as bullying; it's easy to go along with The Machine, even when it's obvious that it's out-right-wrong. People like to believe in the sacredness of institutions and those institutions being exposed as corrupt or just plain flawed disrupts their constitution.

This is just part of the process of moving towards a new paradigm.

However, I am surprised at how many Black people are so willing to just go along with whatever Big Brother claims and professes. If ANYONE should know how much false thought/false concepts/false theories and outright lies, can proliferate and be commonly accepted as true in this society, is us. It's amazing to me how naïve, we (i.e., Black people) have suddenly become.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

> Columbus was attacked throughout Europe for his claim
>that the world was round

I wondered what direction the rest of the sentence was gonna go.

I was not disappointed.

I was trying to use a reference that everyone could easily relate to.

But no matter what name/reference I use, you (and some others) will undoubtedly find an excuse to try to ridicule it.

Carry on with your foolish agenda...

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

Not worth the keystrokes.

-->

_______________________________________

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

cmon man

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

http://draxe.com/conventional-medicine-is-the-leading-cause-of-death/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/medical-errors-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us

You dudes always talking about what's "pseudo science", but ALWAYS manage to ignore the obvious.

GET A FRICKIN' CLUE!!!

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

that first link is from 2000


and is based on a paper by this Starfield person? and we are too ignore the CDC numbers?


that second link this is the opening statement

"You may have thought cancer or heart disease takes the lives of more Americans than any other illness or event. But conventional medicine is actually the leading cause of death today!"


FUCKING MIND BLOWN DUDE THANK YOU FOR SHEDDING THE LIGHT ON THIS FOR US

>that first link is from 2000
>
>
>and is based on a paper by this Starfield person? and we are
>too ignore the CDC numbers?
>
>
>that second link this is the opening statement
>
>"You may have thought cancer or heart disease takes the lives
>of more Americans than any other illness or event. But
>conventional medicine is actually the leading cause of death
>today!"
>
>
>FUCKING MIND BLOWN DUDE THANK YOU FOR SHEDDING THE LIGHT ON
>THIS FOR US
>

which is a US News & World Report article from MAY 3, 2016.

So this just shows that ain't shit improved/changed in the past 16 years.

So what's your F*cking point???

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

not much really.


i forgot the CDC is apart of the conspiracy

>not much really.
>
>
>i forgot the CDC is apart of the conspiracy

by claiming/implying it's stale and outdated information and straight up ignore the 3rd link, which is saying the same thing and ain't even 2 weeks old?

I sound insane? How so? I'm making claims, based on facts. Just because you want to ignore the facts and bury your head in the sand, doesn't change the reality of things. Keep being a mindless zombie and believing in fallacies. One day, you'll be forced to grow up.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

as stale, by deliberating ignoring the link that was current/recent?

And on top of that, dismissing the implications of what it means that nothing has changed regarding this situation for AT LEAST the past 16 years.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

far enough

And crazy? Crazy as a fox!

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

my reality is crumbling around me

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

but here we are!

I've seen it hundreds of times. People go into the hospital and don't come out.

I don't think it's in any way related to the fact that those people were already sick when they went in either.

_______________________________________

>I've seen it hundreds of times. People go into the hospital
>and don't come out.
>

in your favor. Trauma and emergency type shit, the US med. system is top notch.

Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, et.al., the hospital is a DANGEROUS INSTITUTION to go to/be in for those conditions.

>I don't think it's in any way related to the fact that those
>people were already sick when they went in either.

I see your shade right ^^here^^, but The Truth will keep shining.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

>
>Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, et.al., the hospital is a
>DANGEROUS INSTITUTION to go to/be in for those conditions.
>


I can't believe I'm even acknowledging this, but I'm curious about your 'logic'.

If hospitals are dangerous places to go to for cancer, diabetes, etc., then what are the safe places to go to?

_______________________________________

>>
>>Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, et.al., the hospital is a
>>DANGEROUS INSTITUTION to go to/be in for those conditions.
>>

are extremely misinformed, not to mention naïve, when it comes to issues of TRUE healing.

>
>
>I can't believe I'm even acknowledging this, but I'm curious
>about your 'logic'.
>
>If hospitals are dangerous places to go to for cancer,
>diabetes, etc., then what are the safe places to go to?

The earth. The planet provides a natural "cure" for EVERY dis-ease in existence. In more practical terms, your best approach is to avoid contracting those dis-eases in the first place, by making better food choices and studying the science of eating and not eating (i.e., fasting, juicing etc.).

So maybe I shouldn't say the earth (that may be too abstract and vague); but instead I should say the produce section of your local natural foods store or farmers market (after you've gone to the library, of course).

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

lol 'dis-ease'.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

whom do you trust to provide accurate info about medicine and the field of public health?

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

Does THAT make sense to you? (i.e., To believe in those who are the 3rd most successful in killing us, as a source for helping us to get well?)

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

its clear whom you *dont* trust

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

others) to a lesser degree. And then Dr. Joel Fuhrman and David Wolfe to an even lesser degree.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

_______________________________________

every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

That shows the numbers of deaths from " western medicine" beside the number of people who die when using dr sebi's methods I'll continue rolling my eyes and laughing inside at you and people who think like you.

>That shows the numbers of deaths from " western medicine"
>beside the number of people who die when using dr sebi's
>methods I'll continue rolling my eyes and laughing inside at
>you and people who think like you.

information, data, or anything else presented by me is gonna change your willful ignorance. Stay in your mental comfort zone, even if it is built on lies; at least, it makes YOU feel comfortable (and THAT'S ALL that matters, right?).

Being the Third Leading Cause of Death, says enough about the success, safety-ness, and reliability of the US medical system.

And you can keep laughing all you want, but the joke is really on you.



BTW, there's a difference between dying and being killed.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

His public information on dr. Sebi. Which independent body has it been audited and reviewed by?


And explain the difference between being killed and dying to me.
Are you implying that people who undergo conventional medical treatment for a chronic illness and die while under said care are killed by doctors?

And are you saying that nobody under Dr. Sebi's treatment has died? And if they died why isn't that he killed them?

>His public information on dr. Sebi.

Dr. Sebi's court case in New York in which he proved that he healed AIDS, among 8 other diseases, is legendary.



Which independent body
>has it been audited and reviewed by?
>

The 1000's of independent bodies that came to him in a state of dis-ease, with little or no hope (because conventional doctors had written them/their condition off) and left him healthy, happy human beings.

>
>And explain the difference between being killed and dying to
>me.

Dying is more or less a natural death; being killed is usually caused by an entity/somebody outside of the individual, that/who prematurely hastens their death.

>Are you implying that people who undergo conventional medical
>treatment for a chronic illness and die while under said care
>are killed by doctors?
>

THEY ARE SAYING that being treated by doctors leads to the patients' death, to the tune/point of being the 3rd leading cause of death. The illness (chronic or whatever type of illness) didn't kill the patient; the doctor's treatment is what killed the patient.

I'm saying that there is little to nothing that conventional medicine can do to actually heal you of your illness. The best that they can do (or even attempt to do) is to mask the symptoms. They even tell you that many of the prescribed medications can make your overall condition worse, even TO THE POINT OF KILLING YOU.


>And are you saying that nobody under Dr. Sebi's treatment has
>died? And if they died why isn't that he killed them?

I'm not saying that no one has died while under Sebi's care; but I'm sure that what he did, did not cause or hasten the patient's death. Some people wait until the last minute to go to Sebi, when death is all but imminent. At that point, there is nothing Sebi can do to save them and if THAT equates to killin' 'em, well...even if you accept as the case, Dr. Sebi's rate of "killed" patients is still not even remotely comparable to that of conventional medicine's rate of killing.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

"Killing my patients ". Lol.

Your logic is flawed. Severely. Good luck spreading the gospel.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

Didn't want the Feds to come Looking for me.
Now "I got to run like a fugitive.." (c) Bob Marley

Doesn't understand basic high school chemistry. Saw a video here in GD and I couldn't pass the part where he mixed up hydrogen ions and their relationship to pH.
That's all I needed to realise they're all quacks.