#1 ·
Holistic Medicine Forum, Vaccination section.
It all kicks off on page #130, with user Rorion being the main player here.
Here’s the evidence:
Post #2590 – Starts by mocking the discussion, insulting the presenter, and throwing out baseless claims (which smells like paid propaganda without proof) + an unsupported claim regarding Wakefield's work that was later thoroughly explained, debated, and debunked.
Post #2590 – Selective responding. Under point #2, they claim children are "untreated and unharmed" without providing any actual argument. Both questions are answered in subsequent posts. They then bring up someone named "Dr. Željko Poljak" (without specifying what kind of doctor he is), claiming he says vaccines are harmful, again without offering any proof.
Post #2594 – The individual continues to ridicule the debate, claiming I'm asking for personal info as if we were on Spark, even though I explicitly stated in the previous post that sharing a birth year would add credibility to the discussion. Of course, this doesn't help his case, so he refuses to provide it to avoid having his weak points dismantled—even though a birth year isn't exactly sensitive "private data." He then indirectly makes his previous post (#2590) look useless:
Even though he cited the name correctly, he clearly has no clue what the person is actually talking about (topics can range from fashion trends to how cold affects penguin testicle size).
Post #2596 – This is where the user starts butchering posts because they lack actual arguments. Aside from being barely readable, the user states:
Despite explaining that my "address, job, full name, and other private" details aren't necessary, the user keeps ridiculing the conversation. They also fail to understand the question and actually end up asking me for my private info, specifically a photo.
Regarding the claim of "ten years of experience in this (?, ) from nutrition to hospital work"—they didn't specify what "this" refers to. It's just hearsay; a claim as reliable as being on the Moon.
The next claim in that butchered post:
To be specific, the part about "discussing the impact of harmful compounds on the nervous and endocrine systems" is pretty much irrelevant here. "Harmful compound" is such a vague term; you need to actually specify what you're talking about. Then there's this line: "I only have one question, a comparative study (?) on intravenous vs. intramuscular administration of Al and gelatin compounds on the nervous and endocrine system." It’s unclear if the person is asking me for a study or just rambling. Beyond that, the clumsy phrasing makes it obvious they don't have the slightest clue about chemistry. Let's bury that myth once and for all: the amount of any substance in a vaccine never reaches a critical level capable of damaging the nervous (or endocrine) system, even in newborns.
Here is the evidence for my claim (if necessary, I can quote specific amounts), and I'm happy to provide more.
Then, we have this butchered post and the following claim:
Aside from the lack of class in comparing opinions to assholes (given that facts are one thing and opinions are quite another, and I am clearly presenting the former), they claim that Dr. Wakefield (who, mind you, had his paper retracted, was labeled a fraud, and ended up in court) "isn't a nobody, just like R. Blaylock." Nobody even knows who the second person is, and when asked for proof in subsequent posts, the user refuses to provide anything.
The end of this mess concludes with this:
In later posts, I ask them to show me this "other side"—they refuse.
Then they ask if it's rude of me to demand evidence for their claim, which shows they don't understand the basic mechanics of a debate.
When faced with the insinuation that I'm "avoiding the other side's arguments" and a polite request for evidence, the person starts making excuses. For the record, I mentioned twice during the discussion why I felt there was no need to re-read previous pages: it's easier for me to articulate my own stance than to try and build upon someone else's rambling thoughts. As for the idea that "education is one thing, while honesty and the fight for truth are another," I'd agree, though I must point out that the user Rorion isn't fighting for honesty or truth at all—he's just convinced he's right, which is a massive distinction.
Furthermore, I didn't dismiss anyone's stories; I simply asked for them to be presented. Naturally, "testimonies" are subjective—to prove that someone was actually harmed by a vaccine (which is something I haven't claimed in any other post, far from it), one would need to provide:
1. Pathologist's report
2. Any medical history of the child prior to vaccination
And a few other documents to verify everything. The person hasn't provided any of this. Instead, they're hinting at some phantom bias. Sure, I'll admit it—I'm biased toward common sense. That's about it.
The post was written in Word, and Oprah Winfrey went ahead and deleted it because she claims it doesn't comply with the subforum rules. She's right; I violated the last item. In my defense, before I even wrote this, Rorion had been running wild for three full pages, breaking more than half the rules, yet the moderators didn't lift a finger.
In fact, after several of my posts were wiped out following an intervention from the moderator, she even removed this one (which I wrote immediately after her warning). Proof:
She deleted that post, yet despite the evidence, she didn't ban Rorion; instead, she let his post stand:
Here it is in full, post #2590, and here's another screenshot just so you can see the whole thing:
extracted and from the thread, so there's no question that I'm not trying to manipulate anything or get ahead of the cleanup crew.
With this, the moderator has shown clear bias by selectively deleting posts she dislikes while leaving up ones she prefers, even though I spent the last three pages systematically burying crackpot theories with actual arguments.
I’m going back to the thread to reply to everyone (without insults, just like the rest of the discussion), but I am requesting that Oprah Winfrey be recused since she isn't being objective.
Please provide a quick response so I can jump back into the debate.
Best regards, thanks.
Charles Bailey2
It all kicks off on page #130, with user Rorion being the main player here.
Here’s the evidence:
Post #2590 – Starts by mocking the discussion, insulting the presenter, and throwing out baseless claims (which smells like paid propaganda without proof) + an unsupported claim regarding Wakefield's work that was later thoroughly explained, debated, and debunked.
Post #2590 – Selective responding. Under point #2, they claim children are "untreated and unharmed" without providing any actual argument. Both questions are answered in subsequent posts. They then bring up someone named "Dr. Željko Poljak" (without specifying what kind of doctor he is), claiming he says vaccines are harmful, again without offering any proof.
Post #2594 – The individual continues to ridicule the debate, claiming I'm asking for personal info as if we were on Spark, even though I explicitly stated in the previous post that sharing a birth year would add credibility to the discussion. Of course, this doesn't help his case, so he refuses to provide it to avoid having his weak points dismantled—even though a birth year isn't exactly sensitive "private data." He then indirectly makes his previous post (#2590) look useless:
I don't know what the eminent expert Dr. Poljak signed or when, but I know and have heard what he has said publicly about vaccine harm.
Even though he cited the name correctly, he clearly has no clue what the person is actually talking about (topics can range from fashion trends to how cold affects penguin testicle size).
Post #2596 – This is where the user starts butchering posts because they lack actual arguments. Aside from being barely readable, the user states:
10 years of experience in this, from nutrition to hospital work.
Send a photo first if you want more.
Despite explaining that my "address, job, full name, and other private" details aren't necessary, the user keeps ridiculing the conversation. They also fail to understand the question and actually end up asking me for my private info, specifically a photo.
Regarding the claim of "ten years of experience in this (?, ) from nutrition to hospital work"—they didn't specify what "this" refers to. It's just hearsay; a claim as reliable as being on the Moon.
The next claim in that butchered post:
Regarding everything you mentioned Charles Bailey2, which might be true, although the substitution of a mercury compound with another compound was mentioned, I don't agree that none are harmful, given Wakefield and the controversial autism, instead speaking more about the impact of harmful compounds on the nervous and endocrine systems.
Look, let's assume you're an expert on this vaccine, Charles Bailey2; I only have one question: where is the comparative study on the intravenous versus intramuscular administration of Aluminum and mercury compounds via injection?
To be specific, the part about "discussing the impact of harmful compounds on the nervous and endocrine systems" is pretty much irrelevant here. "Harmful compound" is such a vague term; you need to actually specify what you're talking about. Then there's this line: "I only have one question, a comparative study (?) on intravenous vs. intramuscular administration of Al and gelatin compounds on the nervous and endocrine system." It’s unclear if the person is asking me for a study or just rambling. Beyond that, the clumsy phrasing makes it obvious they don't have the slightest clue about chemistry. Let's bury that myth once and for all: the amount of any substance in a vaccine never reaches a critical level capable of damaging the nervous (or endocrine) system, even in newborns.
Here is the evidence for my claim (if necessary, I can quote specific amounts), and I'm happy to provide more.
Then, we have this butchered post and the following claim:
Look, Charles Bailey2, in this case, it's just your opinion—and everyone from an asshole to a saint has an opinion.
Wakefield isn't some nobody, doctor, and neither is R. Blaylock.
That's a far cry from the facts; it's very easy to see through.
Aside from the lack of class in comparing opinions to assholes (given that facts are one thing and opinions are quite another, and I am clearly presenting the former), they claim that Dr. Wakefield (who, mind you, had his paper retracted, was labeled a fraud, and ended up in court) "isn't a nobody, just like R. Blaylock." Nobody even knows who the second person is, and when asked for proof in subsequent posts, the user refuses to provide anything.
The end of this mess concludes with this:
Of course, regarding the topic, it's not one-sided; there is another side to the coin.
Is it rude of you to ask me to provide what Željko Poljak signed?
The question is whether you recognize, or want to recognize, the other side of the vaccine story.
Based on your writing, you seem educated, yet there are certain reasons why you bypass any argument (looking back at a few pages of this thread, if you've actually read it) that speaks directly to that dark side of vaccines.
Being educated is one thing; honesty and the fight for truth are another.
Are you just going to automatically dismiss mothers' testimonies by calling them coincidences?
That's why I mentioned your excessive self-confidence; if it's not that, then maybe it's bias?
I'll accept the hyperbole that way—fine, you can't compare Wakefield to the sky and the earth.
In later posts, I ask them to show me this "other side"—they refuse.
Then they ask if it's rude of me to demand evidence for their claim, which shows they don't understand the basic mechanics of a debate.
When faced with the insinuation that I'm "avoiding the other side's arguments" and a polite request for evidence, the person starts making excuses. For the record, I mentioned twice during the discussion why I felt there was no need to re-read previous pages: it's easier for me to articulate my own stance than to try and build upon someone else's rambling thoughts. As for the idea that "education is one thing, while honesty and the fight for truth are another," I'd agree, though I must point out that the user Rorion isn't fighting for honesty or truth at all—he's just convinced he's right, which is a massive distinction.
Furthermore, I didn't dismiss anyone's stories; I simply asked for them to be presented. Naturally, "testimonies" are subjective—to prove that someone was actually harmed by a vaccine (which is something I haven't claimed in any other post, far from it), one would need to provide:
1. Pathologist's report
2. Any medical history of the child prior to vaccination
And a few other documents to verify everything. The person hasn't provided any of this. Instead, they're hinting at some phantom bias. Sure, I'll admit it—I'm biased toward common sense. That's about it.
The post was written in Word, and Oprah Winfrey went ahead and deleted it because she claims it doesn't comply with the subforum rules. She's right; I violated the last item. In my defense, before I even wrote this, Rorion had been running wild for three full pages, breaking more than half the rules, yet the moderators didn't lift a finger.
In fact, after several of my posts were wiped out following an intervention from the moderator, she even removed this one (which I wrote immediately after her warning). Proof:
She deleted that post, yet despite the evidence, she didn't ban Rorion; instead, she let his post stand:
Here it is in full, post #2590, and here's another screenshot just so you can see the whole thing:
extracted and from the thread, so there's no question that I'm not trying to manipulate anything or get ahead of the cleanup crew.
With this, the moderator has shown clear bias by selectively deleting posts she dislikes while leaving up ones she prefers, even though I spent the last three pages systematically burying crackpot theories with actual arguments.
I’m going back to the thread to reply to everyone (without insults, just like the rest of the discussion), but I am requesting that Oprah Winfrey be recused since she isn't being objective.
Please provide a quick response so I can jump back into the debate.
Best regards, thanks.
Charles Bailey2