06-09-2019, 11:03 AM
12
Re: Censoring Social Media
Just another way to gain control over the people. Shutting down freedom of speech and letting us talk about only what 'they' want us to talk about. We must all think the same way didn't you know?One day there won't be any point in having a forum because we won't be able to debate
06-09-2019, 11:30 AM
13
Re: Censoring Social Media
Hasn't it always been dodgy trying to publicly preach to the masses and change their opinions to your way of thinking though?Isn't that what these radicals do and then get themselves arrested?
We are ALL entitled to our opinions, but sometimes it's best not to grind it in to everyone else as the results could be dangerous.
06-09-2019, 11:30 AM
14
Re: Censoring Social Media
His mother was among the first to die. Six of his sisters also were killed by Ebola. They had cared for their sick mother.
Kakule accepted the vaccine. He made sure his wife and children got it, too.
“If I hadn’t, we’d all be dead,” he said.
Distrust of vaccine could easily fuel a worldwide epidemic of a disease like Ebola....
See also 'How anti-vaccine movements threaten global health'......
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48585036
06-09-2019, 11:35 AM
15
Re: Censoring Social Media
Originally Posted by Lion Queen
->
Just another way to gain control over the people. Shutting down freedom of speech and letting us talk about only what 'they' want us to talk about. We must all think the same way didn't you know? One day there won't be any point in having a forum because we won't be able to debate
Wot she said.
06-09-2019, 11:37 AM
16
Re: Censoring Social Media
Originally Posted by Mups
->
Hasn't it always been dodgy trying to publicly preach to the masses and change their opinions to your way of thinking though?Isn't that what these radicals do and then get themselves arrested?
I actually enjoy the flu debate, I do think Realist has some very valid and interesting points and also I like to listen to the other side who think the flu jab is the best as they too have valid points. Yes, I enjoy a good debate, don't like it when people start getting ugly though and turn it into an argument which happens quite frequently on OFF, especially in the religion threads.
I'll make up my own mind as to whether I have the flu jab after listening to points on both sides.
06-09-2019, 11:42 AM
17
Re: Censoring Social Media
Originally Posted by Lion Queen
->
We've all got our own views and no amount of 'preaching' would get me to do something I don't want to do. I actually enjoy the flu debate, I do think Realist has some very valid and interesting points and also I like to listen to the other side who think the flu jab is the best as they too have valid points. Yes, I enjoy a good debate, don't like it when people start getting ugly though and turn it into an argument which happens quite frequently on OFF, especially in the religion threads.
I'll make up my own mind as to whether I have the flu jab after listening to points on both sides.
Same here, Queenie, but there are those who will always be swayed according to the health authorities.
06-09-2019, 12:42 PM
18
Re: Censoring Social Media
The whole notion of "anti vaxxers" causing drop in vaccine sales and uptake has been debunked already. It is imho a nonsense and a crafted media meme which naive people fall for and perpetuate. I could go and provide the links reporting and debunking the nonsense but it would be wasted on this particular audience I fear who self confess that they are always keen to do their own Googling anyway.One has nothing to worry about when presenting material from reputable sources. For example the UK government and health bodies maintain records of the number of deaths caused by various diseases and ailments. That kind of data is open data, in the public domain and nobody need fear any of OP's silly scaremongering by discussing it or referencing it.
The same is true of scholarly articles and research material and studies.
However it is no surprise at all that the vaccine industry might seek to shut down open discourse and criticism of it's industry as that would affect its sale profits. This is after all, a $billion industry which in the USA has already managed to get legislation through that prevents any citizen harmed or killed by their vaccines, being able to sue them. They have become a law unto themselves which is extremely worrying for all concerned.
Those who can not stand being criticised and have to resort to censorship of debate are simply cowards and scoundrels of the worse kind. Little different from Hitler burning books.
In the end the way forward is to me extremely simple.
If vaccine companies want to increase the uptake of their products and thus increase their profits they need only do 2 simple things.
Firstly they need to engage with truly independent research bodies to have their vaccines tested PROPERLY, impartially, and tested for all required aspects including for carcinogenicity and mutagens. They simply need to prove that their products work and do what they say they will do on the tin. If they do, people will be inclined to take them. Currently we are in a situation where there exists grave doubt amongst the public as to the efficacy of some vaccines and that is just one of the reasons for less than 100% take up.
What we actually have instead of simple independent tests proving a vaccine's efficacy, is the vaccine and health industry combined using purposeful "Campaigns of Fear" to promote their products. This was made very evident by the CDC Management Powerpoint presentation by CDC Director Glen Novak which recommended the media engage in a range of fearmongering activities to boost demand for their Flu vaccine.
Again people can Google that presentation at their leisure.
Trying to scare people into taking up a product is a poor poor way to conduct business imho though it doubtless has provided strong revenues from the weaker and more vulnerable members of society. It is to my mind a very wicked way to market health products.
What is wrong with simply demonstrating to people how good the vaccine is for its purpose, backed with independent studies? Surely then people will take the vaccines up readily? Shouldn't it be that simple?
The second thing the vaccine manufacturers need to do is put in place proper consistent monitoring and recording protocols throughout the entire medical industry (Doctors, GPs, coroners, specialists etc) to be able to catch and record each and every instance of adverse reaction to vaccines and to record all deaths in a consistent fashion.
Vaccines do cause harm unfortunately. Plenty of people have been hurt, some have gotten life changing adverse effects, some have been outright killed. One can find the evidence for this, right there in the public domain by looking at the actual cases of victims in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and in the VAERS Database. Again Google at your leisure. The Compensation programme has already paid out over $4 billion in compensation to victims of vaccines. That's just the cases that have managed to get through the huge barrier of lawyers acting for the vaccine industry. Many more didn't succeed but feel they have a case.
The reason we need consistent monitoring of adverse reactions and causes of death is because the public need to know what the adverse reactions actually are, how serious they can be and how likely they are to occur.
People need to look at the results of studies and government data to see real life numbers of vaccine adverse effects and deaths from specific ailments in order to be able to make any sort of informed decision for themselves and their children.
Currently there seems to me to be little incentive for the industry to properly track and record adverse reactions in this way. Which is odd if you think about it because if the vaccines are safe then properly monitoring such information and making it available would greatly improve vaccine take up!
In the end there needs to be real open debate on each specific vaccine but that will never happen. Our media is tightly controlled. You can't even get a proper open programme about say the sugar conglomerates and the wicked levels of sugar going into just about every supermarket product.
All related programmes just cow tow to the industry and stop well short of openly criticising it.
The same will be true of any vaccine programme, it would simply be one sided, would fail to present the plethora of information that concerns most people and would cow tow to the vaccine manufacturers.
We live in a world where medical staff are fearful to mention anything regarding vaccines if it doesn't tow the party line. Their jobs and careers are on the line if they speak against them imho. Yet some do. Brave people each of them.
You can be sure that ANY TV programme regarding vaccines will tow the party line and be extremely careful not to criticise them so how else are the public to gain the FULL information they need to make an informed decision other than word of mouth and the internet?
The internet is the people's source of information and yes, it is a minefield of good and bad information and deliberate misinformation and outright falsehoods. But the people have the right and ability to read it all, to assess it all, weigh it up for themselves and make an informed decision.
When your government begins to say "I will do your thinking for you, I know what's best for you, you may not criticise or object and I am censoring any information that disagrees with me"
then is the time to run a mile imho because then you're in the Orwellian Police State.
We are even witnessing this today with BrExit. We have the people vehemently saying they want to be out of the EU and yet we have government actively doign every possible thing it can to oppose that decision effectively saying :
"I'm sorry people but you must let us do your thinking for you, we know best, you made a mistake voting to leave and we are going to censor that outcome and stay in the EU"
Do we really want to live in such a world?
06-09-2019, 01:19 PM
20
Re: Censoring Social Media
I wonder where to draw the line with 'Free Speech' though?What about the religious nuts, or the hate preachers, should they be allowed their free speech ideas to try and force people to think their way?
Like I said earlier, some weaker people will always succumb.
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
